Teresa Benns Warning

/ Robert Robbins

Men Studying Theology in a Medieval University

Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics contends that “Ott is not a trustworthy source of theology and should not be used, certainly, in defending truths of faith,” (“Ludwig Ott warning, etc.”). Benns makes this preposterous claim just before citing a book review which essentially states the following facts:

1. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a digest 

2. Digests are not adequate to teach theology in-depth because of their concision

3. Ott’s work has “remarkable qualities,” with “obvious scholarship”

4. Denzinger references are used, as well as Sacred Scripture and journals

5. Direct quotations of magisterium are not given 

6. “Because of its brevity,” could mislead seminarians 

7. Work is adequate to pass theological examination for seminarians

8. May be used as a quick reference, though not a complete treatment of subject

The obvious reason why Benns exaggerates this book review into a claim that Ludwig Ott is persona non grata, is that it is either Ott or Benns. You have to make your choice, because where Benns holds x, and Ott y, you must either choose one of the two. It cannot be both. Now I know some of you read Benns’s latest article and thought, “Yea, makes sense to me. Ott is a not reliable. He doesn’t even quote directly from the magisterium! How about that! Nope. Only the Pope!” And Benns would reinforce that notion by the following paragraph: 

“So it seems that those who are trying to shoot down what is written on this site need to substantially step up their game if they want to be considered credible writers. And what is more important, they need to stop telling people that they can rely on the opinions of theologians versus those of the magisterium, which is exactly what King criticizes Ott for doing. Now you see why so much is quoted from the magisterium here, and from Holy Scripture.” 

First off, “step up my game?” What are we, in high school still? I am not credible because I quote from an accepted theologian of the Catholic Church who has written a conspectus of theology the likes of which no one has ever achieved, which even Benn’s own book reviewer states was a formidable task, and was a remarkable work of concision, all because said work is inadequate to study theology?! The most that one should take from the book review is that Ott’s work is not necessarily best suited for upper-level seminary studies in theology. I say upper-level, because even the book reviewer states that Ott’s digest would be able to give the seminarian enough information to pass examinations. 

But, as for “stepping up my game,” perhaps it would behoove my readers to know, and Benn’s readers as well, that, unlike Benns, who has never seen the inside of a university before, least ways ever written an examination paper on any subject, let along theology or philosophy, I happened to have done so, so my street-cred is proved by my credentials, if it comes to arguing about “stepping up one’s game. Robert Robbins credits in higher eduction: 150 (all cum laude); Teresa Stanfill-Benns credits in higher eduction: 0. I point out this because I know exactly what the book reviewer is talking about, insofar as university examinations are concerned in the subject of theology and philosophy. I had near enough credits in theology, most of which were in the honors program, to earn a minor in theology. I shared the university classroom with seminarians with whom I was acquainted and would often talk. We took the same examinations in philosophy, so when the book reviewer states that a digest would not be adequate to teach theology in-depth but adequate to pass an examination, I understand what is being stated, whereas Benn does not, because she’s never been there or done that. 

But I am most interested in this supposed criticism of Benns’s that Ott does not directly quote from the magisterium but relies, among other sources, upon the Denzinger. I say this is interesting because on Benns’s own website, she has a page dedicated to indexing primary sources, and Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Henry Denzinger is listed on the index. Now, apparently the Denzinger is good enough for Benns, but it is just woefully insufficient for Ott. This is the most ridiculous and hypocritical thing I think Benns has written in a while, and it must be seen as such, because the root cause behind it is what I have been trying to get readers of this blog to see: Benns holds herself higher than theologians, because she thinks she is a theologian! 

Nothing in the book review that Benns quoted could possibly leave the reasonable man the idea that Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is not trustworthy to defend the faith. The book review never says Ott’s work is not trustworthy. He simply says that the work, as a digest, is not adequate to teach seminarians theology at any deep level. That’s it! Now, Benns piggybacks on the notion of inadequacy and blows it into a hot ball of air that it cannot be relied upon, because it does not quote directly from the magisterium, but only—wait for it—the Denzinger, which is exactly what Benns does! What are we to conclude, then, that the Denzinger is not reliable, or perhaps that since Benns and Ott use the Denzinger, and since Ott is supposedly untrustworthy, that Benns is untrustworthy, as well? 

Benns goes on in her article, quoting Msgr. Fenton: 

“The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.”

I really like how Benns thinks this quote from Msgr. Fenton proves anything for her side. What it states is that theologians have the duty to study the writings of the popes, and to expound upon what they teach for books of instruction written for the people! That is precisely what I said in my previous post: the theologians are the teachers of Catholic truth. The popes, as Fenton observes, are the authority, that is, the source of those teachings! Fenton is saying that the authoritative magisterium of the popes is mediated by the theologians for the benefit of understanding for the people. “The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching…” That is, to expound upon papal teaching in books of instruction, like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, for instance. 

The quote states something else: “…[theologians ought] not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.” Benns, who thinks she is a private theologian, imposes her criticisms on established theologians, which she would have right to do, if it were only true that she herself actually was a theologian. But no amount of books in one’s own library makes one a theologian. Studying theology, like countless seminarians did under Dr. Ott, and then passing the theological examinations and being awarded the degrees in theology makes one a theologian.   

I do not claim to be a theologian. I am just an ordinary lay Catholic like you who are reading this—unless you are one of those mysterious and secret Catholic priests who may be in existence though hidden from the world, perhaps behind the Iron Curtain. (Though I doubt this eventuality, since I have yet to receive one single reader of CatholicEclipsed from Russia. Croatia, Latvia, even Ghana, but no Russia.) When an approved theologian in the Catholic Church says that a teaching is a probable opinion, then I humbly accept that exposition, and move on, because I am not out to challenge the integrity or competence of men far above my level of eduction and understanding. But, for those who have a stake in the game, who think their place in this whole story is being challenged, they fight tooth and nail to win back accolades and esteem which should never have been theirs in the first place, because they are trying to be something they are not. 

The fact is, Benns thinks that mediated jurisdiction from God (the papal theory) has been infallibly defined. Benns writes,

“‘Only those …doctrinal teachings of the Church… which emanate from general councils representing the whole episcopate and the papal decisions ex cathedra [are infallible]. The ordinary and usual form of the papal teaching activity is not infallible.’  This contradicts papal teaching.”

Really? What does the BC teach regarding when and what teachings are infallible? 

530. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.

531. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:

   1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;

   2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;

   3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.

532. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity. 

That is what our Catechism teaches, and that is what Ott teaches, as well, and that is what Benns implicitly denies. Infallibility, which guarantees certitude, is invoked under specific conditions. It is simply false to say that Pope Pius XII ever defined or declared that the papal theory was certain. He could have done so, if he wanted, of course. But the fact remains that Pius XII did not “indicate by certain words such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intend[ed] to speak infallibly.” Any bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. But Benns insists that to hold such a view that the teachings found in Pius XII’s writings on jurisdiction is so certain, the denial of which teaching is actually a mortal sin! 

“It seems to be a very clear choice to believe the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, confidante of Pope Pius XII, and Ottaviani’s friend, Msgr. Fenton, over anything a theologian such as Ott, who obviously exhibits minimalist tendencies, might claim. Pope Pius XII’s decision is sententia certa (theologically certain) — implicit in Scripture and Tradition, as this teaching truly is — not probabilior. To deny this is censured as a theological error and constitutes a mortal sin against ecclesiastical faith.”

There you have it, folks. Benns, the private laywoman who is not even a college graduate, let alone a doctor of theology in the Catholic Church under an actual reigning Roman Pontiff, got it right, but Ott who was such a theological doctor and rector of a prestigious and ancient Catholic institution of theological research, got it wrong. Cannot we perceive the gross arrogance in the comparison, and the utter rash judgment that Ludwig Ott (and this author) is guilty of mortal sin against ecclesiastical faith, and this coupled with the fact that the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma received both a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in 1954, which means precisely that it does not contain anything that would lead people to sin? I may go out on a limb here and say that that may constitute some kind of sin, not against faith of course, but perhaps against charity.  

Benns closes the section of bashing the theologian Ott by an appeal to obedience to the pope, as if Ott (or this author) were not being obedient to the pope simply because he taught in a theological digest (and I repeated it) that a teaching of the pope was, though authoritative and more probable, nevertheless not certain because it wasn’t definitely decided. Benns’s plaintively concludes: 

“So who loves the pope? Sadly, it would seem that very few at all truly love him today, for very few obey him without question.”

How disingenuous and absurd a claim! Because Ott’s reading of Mystici Corporis does not jive with Benn’s reading, then somehow Ott is not trustworthy as a teacher and does not obey nor truly love the Holy Father. It is false filial devotion to the Holy Father to think every utterance of his is an infallible decree. There have ever been finely nuanced theological disputations and distinctions which the theologians of the Church have engaged in for centuries upon centuries, and the Popes have let them work things out accordingly, because that was their business. When matters of faith or morals needed authoritatively defined, the Popes raised their voices above the crowded halls of academia, and silenced the din of theologians with a definitive word and decree. Benns would have us believe that that already happened, and yet, the funny thing is, it seems the only who heard the Holy Father speak so was Benns, for all the real theologians were just carrying on business as usual.   

   

Powered by

12 thoughts on “Teresa Benns Warning”

  1. Robert, you seem to imply that if a teaching from the Pope has not been proclaimed ex cathedra, then we Catholics are free to hold another opinion. Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says: “164 (b). The Pope can teach without speaking infallibly; for example, he does this in his encyclical letters. CATHOLICS MUST ACCEPT SUCH TEACHING, NOT ON FAITH, BUT IN OBEDIENCE TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND IN RESPECT FOR HIS WISDOM.” (Father Connell’s Confraternity Edition, New Baltimore Catechism, No. 3, Official Revised Edition 1949) So, though it may not be a mortal sin to hold a different opinion than the Pope on something that has not been officially stated Ex Cathedra, it seems as if it would be at least a venial sin.

    Like

    • Jeff, I do believe that we ought to assent to what the Pope teaches, even if he does not define a doctrine of belief on faith or morals. I have repeatedly said that I believe everything that the Popes teach, either in encyclical letters, allocutions, etc., not because they may be infallible, but because they are safe to follow. Ott says that Pius XII’s teaching is authoritative, which means it demands our assent. Ott also says that the papal theory of jurisdiction is more probable. And Ott does not deny the teaching at all. Nevertheless it is false to say it is certain without an infallible definition from the Pope. That doesn’t mean–and I do not mean!–that we do not have to follow it or believe it. I agree with you that it would be some kind of offense, probably a venial sin, to deny anything that the Pope teaches.

      Thank you for reading and commenting. I appreciate the opportunity to air these issues out. All I want is for Pray-at-Home Catholics not to be witch-hunted on account of some silly things some bloggers may say on their websites. May God prevent me from being so silly.

      Like

      • I had to delete some comments today. Let me explain why.

        I am all for comments which criticize the stance I take at CatholicEclipsed. Without criticism, we cannot grow in our understanding. That said, however, I will not tolerate spamming comments, that is, comments which have already been made in substance and have been addressed. Such behavior is disrespectful to the readers who visit this website and read the comments wanting a different take on issues. Further, quotes given at length in Latin are welcome, though for the benefit of the readers, there should be a link providing a translation. There are very few people left in the world who can read Latin for comprehension. I know I cannot, and that is after two years of university Latin.

        So, if you would like to comment, please do not repeat yourself. I pride myself on giving everyone here their voice, provided it is not hostile or utterly unhelpful.

        Like

  2. I haven’t entirely followed the argument being made here on both sides, however it sounds like the controversy over Pius XII changing Holy Week. Now in retrospect a lot of sedes think this was a harmful bridge to further reforms. So I’m guessing possibly Ott may say some things that are thought to be suspect, since he is publishing on the cusp of changes we all now doubt? Also I would wonder if certain arguments proceed from reason (again, I’m not particularly sure what is being referred to specifically).

    The bigger problem to me is the sedevacantist foundational arguments are kind of faulty and all over the place. Was it the alleged heresies released in 1965 in the Second Vatican Council that prove sedevacantism therefore logically follows? Or issuing of the “New Mass” in 1969? Or was Roncalli proven to be a pre-election heretic (as BC contends), or was there some “irregularity” in the 1958 election which made it invalid (which was also argued by BC)?

    The Vatican 2 documents being heretical is a common argument. Problem is, most of the alleged heresies in the documents are ambiguities. This means they are not clearly heretical, nor clearly Catholic, which then requires a slightly different argument to show them as clearly heretical. If I asked you if I was going to do something today, I would not be accused of lying if I said “maybe”, even though it is not a “yes” or “no” answer. However my argument is that ambiguities, since they are not clearly Catholic, then must be considered to be clearly heretical (when they touch on an issue that when directly denied would be heretical).

    Another question was if the Vatican 2 errors are heresies or lesser errors.

    In my view, the fundamental arguments for sedevacantism are often unclear, and this leads to numbers of people who hold sedevacantist views staying small. The arguments should be worked out and strengthened and basically be “proven”, then this would possibly lead to widespread conversions to the view.

    (I believe this process is of the top priority to sedes, and I could attempt to pick apart arguments to try to illustrate the problems I see with them when they are presented as “proofs” when they seem to have gaps in them that may not make them to be “proof”).

    Like

    • Thanks, Aqua, for your remarks. This doesn’t have to do with Holy Week.

      But I would reply to your point about a lack of proof for Sede Vacante thesis. Here it is in brief:

      Heresy separates one from the Body of Christ.

      All the men who claimed the Chair of Peter after Pius XII were heretics.

      Therefore, no man who claimed the Chair of Peter after Pius were members of the Body of Christ, because one cannot be a head of a body one is not a member of.

      I could cite heresy by heresy in evidence (not the same as proof) for the second proposition. I could cite the first proposition in the BC. And the explanatory note in the conclusion is commonsense or axiomatic and needs no citation. And the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. So there’s one proof you can try to pick apart.

      Thanks for visiting.

      Like

      • Yeah, I guess my problem is with the specific alleged heresies cited. They’re usually ambiguities, and I could make arguments they could be “read in the Light of Tradition”.

        Roncalli’s major thing he said pre-election, per BC article, was that “orthodox are brothers”. The word “brothers” is ambiguous. It could simply be argued they meant we are all members of the human race, which is true. However in contrast “pope” Francis specifically said lutherans are “brothers and sisters in the faith”. This would be some kind of theological error – can we say for certain it is heretical? I’ve seen a lot of people confidently post this or that thing, but upon closer examination there were problems with their view on things. I mean just the fact that we have maybe at least 5 mutually exclusive views on what’s the correct Catholic position today illustrates this problem of a lack of precision (sedeplenism, sedevacantism at “churches”, sedeprivationism, conclavism, home alone, etc.).

        Or with Vatican 2, “the Roman Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ”. This suggests the Catholic Church is a smaller church part of the larger Christian Church. But it is still a correct interpretation that RCC is a subset of CoC with them being identical. If a group has one member, and you say that one member is a part of that group, that is still correct to say, it’s just kind of a weird use of language. I think we could easily in the court of public opinion make the case that this use of ambiguous language is used deliberately to try to push the heretical interpretation. However, strictly in itself it may be argued that the ambiguity avoids being directly heretical.

        Like

  3. I partially understood your point. I would not have written based on your erroneous statements and belittling my comments in previous blogs, but I still wanted to clarify this to the end and comment on it.
    But the point is that you believe that Teresa cannot have an OPINION that immediate jurisdiction is protestant heresy. For example, you did not give any answer to my comment on her blog, why it could not be virtually revealed truth, at least as an opinion (you say that an opinion can only be based on ex cathedra definitions, but I read something else in the encyclopedia). You gave no answer as to why it couldn’t be her opinion.
    Well, at least in the comments you admit that it is much safer to listen to the Pope’s opinion in this regard (otherwise it would be at least some kind of sin). But in that case, don’t you contradict yourself that you believe that unity is not hindered by the fact that someone spreads different opinion contrary to Pope’s opinion? Basically, you yourself believe that it is safer to follow the Pope’s opinion, but at the same time, how can you watch someone else follow a different opinion and possibly “sin forgivably”? If you yourself admit that you should follow the more probable opinion, then how can you allow unity with those who follow the less probable opinion. That’s your contradiction! Open sin (small or big) interferes with unity. Well, you may not consider it at the level of heresy (as infallibly defined), but why should someone like Teresa not have the right to an opinion like virtually revealed truth?

    Like

    • I am sorry that I came across as belittling to you in anyway. I did not comment anymore on Benns’s website, because she doesn’t approve my comments anymore.

      It seems to me that you are saying Benns is entitled to an opinion on what constitutes heresy. Is that correct? Heresy is defined by the Church, so she is not entitled to an opinion. Now, there are grades of disbelief, or denial or doubt of doctrines, for sure, but Benns used the term heresy, so she is bound by how the Church teaches and defines that term. If she wanted to use the term “denial of virtually revealed truth,” she could have done so, but then who know what that means?

      I know you like Benns. We all do. But we should also like what the Church teaches, and hold each other accountable to it, whether we have websites or not, or whether we have been studying theology manuals for thirty years or not. A failure to be corrected, not the act of correcting, results in disharmony and discord.

      Like

      • I am saying we have right What I am saying is that we are entitled to an opinion about what is heresy as far as the Church allows. In the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, I read that heresy is denial of revealed truth. It does not say that it is a denial of only what is defined ex cathedra. The Catholic Encyclopedia allows room for opinion regarding virtually revealed truth. This is also proven by what Teresa presented, that even the Gallicanist Gerson, who, Manning relates, later “…himself confessed that he was maintaining an opinion which was so much at variance with the Tradition of the Church before the Council of Constance that anyone who held it would be branded as a heretic.” So it was not defined ex cathedra, but there was already a generally accepted opinion who would be heretic!

        And by the way, you didn’t even respond to the second part of my comment. How can you form some kind of unity with those who hold a less probable opinion, even if everyone involved here holds the opinion that immediate jurisdiction is only at the level of error?

        Like

      • The unity of faith is dependent upon the attribute of infallibility. We share this bond of the true faith through through those truths which we have received from the Church as having been divinely revealed. We also have a bond and unity in submitting our intellect and will to the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, whether he teaches ex cathedra or not. This I have stressed again and again, and yet the there are those who simply look past my emphasis on the necessity to submit to the Roman Pontiffs in whatever they teach.

        I do not believe Benns has the right to call a proposition a heresy when the Church has not defined it as such. To do so would at least be putting herself on the level of theologians, if not the level of the Pope. All we may do is say either what theologians have said regarding heresies or what the Roman Pontiffs have taught are heresies, or what our Catechisms teach us are heresies. To go beyond these is to go beyond our own competence.

        As to unity, if you want unity of belief among Pray at Home Catholics, the combox you should be burning up is Benns’, not mine. She’s the one who refuses to approve my comments, and she’s the one who said never to email her again. I am not the only one she as ostracized. How is that not committing the sin of schism? As the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it: “Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.” That sounds a lot like what Teresa has done. You should ask her about it.

        Like

  4. “We also have a bond and unity in submitting our intellect and will to the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs” . And this is the main thing in this regard.
    As the traditionalists have destroyed countless souls, imagine that we are in a state of constant war. Less probable opinion today is beneficial only to Traditionalists. Some kind of extraordinary joint decision must be made to consider a potential enemy those who follow less probable opinion, similar to a curfew. Of course, it is safer to follow the Pope’s opinion and we have a duty to do about it as soon as we become aware of it. Regardless of whether the denial is at the level of heresy or not. Furthermore, I also believe that it is your responsibility to prove that this cannot be an opinion of heresy unless defined, you have too little argumentation, because in the past such an opinion (undefined ex cathedra) was not condemned.

    Like

Comments are closed.