You hear it all the time. 137% of all Catholics contracept. 11 Catholics out of 10 contracept. (Their numbers, not mine.) And then when you say that the Church still says it’s wrong they drop the Latin hammer on ya’. Sensus freakin’ fidelium baby. Oh yeah.
Sensus fidelium is popularly understood as- if enough Catholics believe something stupid, it magically becomes right.
I’m wondering, what’s the poll number where that magic occurs? How many Catholics have to believe something ridiculous before it becomes magically right and the Vatican must bow down to the gods of Gallup.
What the power structure of the Church is obviously finding hard to understand (and me) is that the people who happen to be alive right now are soooooo much smarter than all the wisdom built up over 2,000 years. That’s a lot of dead dumb people, if you ask me. And it seems to me none of those previous generations watched “Two and a Half Men” so dead people have that going for them.
And there’s this. The sensus fidelium isn’t always important to these folks. I always wonder where the sensus fidelium disappears to when it comes to things like the death penalty. Polls report that 66% of Catholics support the death penalty. Why do some just insist the death penalty is always wrong and say they’re right and in that case the majority of living people are wrong when they were touting the wisdom of the masses moments before. Then, I guess, the sensus fidelium isn’t as important.
So what we have then is people who think they’re smarter than all the dead people and most of the living people now. Seems to me there’s a name for those people. No, not “Occupy Wall Street.” And no, not “Mr. President.”
I think they’re just blowhards. Just plain ol’ blowhards.
November 14, 2011 at 6:31 pm
I'm a post-Vatican II Catholic, so I don't do Latin much but I was wondering if there is a sensus idiotim?
November 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm
ProudHillbilly: Rather, it would be 'sensus infidelium.'
Congar wrote, "Too much must not be attributed to the sensus fidelium, not only in view of the hierarchy’s prerogatives…but in itself. History tells us of widespread failures of faith in the Christian people: in the East of the seventh century in face of Islam, in England and in Scandinavian countries in face of the Protestant Reformation, in unhealthy enthusiasms here and superstitious devotions there" (Lay People in the Church, pg. 275).
I wrote my M.A. thesis on the Sensus Fidelium, if anyone is interested. 🙂
November 14, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Point 1. Sensus fidelium – from a local Church i.e. that of the USA does not count. It has to be from the Universal Church.
Point 2. If you extract but not ejaculate, then it is not coitus interuptus. So, there is no sin. (Just saying.)
November 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm
It sounds like you been reading G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy"—"If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death."
November 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Sensus infidelium. Great line.
November 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I though SF just applied to situations in which there was not established tradition and practice. Like new technologies, for example. Surely it does not apply to established norms on the death penalty or contraception. If it did, then Church would have evolved a moral postition which is the direct opposite of its previously established position, which, according to Cardinal Newman, is a sign not of the Development of Doctrine, but of pure error.
This is what makes discussion about the death penalty so frustrating, when people do not admit this principle.
November 14, 2011 at 7:16 pm
@dmw – sensus infidelium doesn't sound nearly snarky enough.
November 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm
ProudHillbilly: Agreed!
Blackrep: Can you provide an example of a "new technology" that requires an examination of the sensus fidelium?
November 14, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I don't know… an artificial womb or something? I think that would be snazzy, but I have no idea what the Vatican would say.
Or, what if we invented a pill that men could take that would harmlessly give a certain sex of sperm great advantage, and thus select the sex of our babies? People would love it. I think the Vatican might hate it.
November 14, 2011 at 11:24 pm
dmw: genetic engineering – to knock off defective and disease causing genes by zapping these at the DNA level or grafting non-human genes in the sequence to enhance the species with additional capabilities e.g. gills.
November 14, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Say, the point of 'sensus fidelium' is the 'fidelium' part. (If them folks aren't faithful, then their 'sense' doesn't count.)
November 15, 2011 at 3:14 pm
That is the best comment yet, 6:51.
What Rick said. There is a creepy novel in there somewhere.
Many is the time when I've done the Heimlich on a child who thought swallowing a lego or marble was a good idea, and I asked the heavens why on earth there were two ears, two eyes, yet only one hole for air. I wished my children had blowholes. Why not gills too, for when they tip over into the pool?
Brilliant. But again, I think the Vatican would not approve of my half-dolphin children.
November 15, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I'm pretty sure the Vatican's already said you can alter the germ line (make modifications inheritable) therapeutically, but not for the sake of enhancement. I'm not sure what their stance is on non-inheritable enhancements, though I'd guess against.
November 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm
The one time Jesus took a poll, everyone got it wrong except one guy–and that guy only got it right due to divine intervention (cf. Matt. 16:13-16).
November 18, 2011 at 6:40 am
well…if sensus-consensus is the order of the day then why don't they revoke the abortion laws in America considering that more than 50% of ALL Americans are pro-life now…
What?…sorry, I didn't get that…did you just say 'humbug'!!