In the current malaise of the Church we often hear people talk about how ambiguity is employed in documents or speech so that it may be manipulated later by the so-called “liberals.” Some of the most influential examples of ambiguity are in the Second Vatican Council (See Unam Sanctam’s Council Fathers on Ambiguity in Vatican II). The usage and manipulation of these ambiguities came by of way of the New Theologians and other "innovators." The damage they produced was disseminated in seminaries and academia, eventually finding their way into regular parish life. As a result, some well-intentioned Catholics sometimes fall victim to certain errors or heresies.
However, there is another tactic that the New Theologians and innovators use to try and push change. This is what Catholic philosopher Romano Amerio called, “circiterisms.” In the first chapter of his greatest work, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century, Amerio explains why he coined this term: "This seems to me to be a necessary term to express a typical characteristic of the contemporary world both inside and outside the Church. It comes from the Latin adverb circiter (=about, more or less). The word was much used by Giordano Bruno in his Dialogues." In chapter 5 he goes into more detail, which I have provided below. Please note the importance of what he is saying in the context of the Church from the time of the council to the present day.
Novel hermeneutic of the Council, continued. “Circiterisms.” Use of the conjunction “but.” Deepening understanding.The “circiterism” is something which occurs frequently in the arguments of the innovators. It consists in referring to an indistinct and confused term as if it were something well established and defined, and then extracting or excluding from it the element one needs to extract or exclude. The term spirit of the council, or indeed the council, is just such an expression. I remember instances in pastoral practice, of priestly innovators violating quite definite rules which had been in no way altered since the council, and replying to the faithful, who were amazed at their arbitrary proceedings, by referring them to “the council.”I do not deny that a knowing subject can only direct his attention successively to the various parts of a complex whole, given, on the one hand, that the intentio [intention]14 of the intellect is incapable of contemplating all sides of it at once, and on the other, that the exercise of thought is free. I do, however, maintain that this mode of operation, natural to the intellect, must not be confused with that deliberate diversion of attention which the will can impose on the workings of the mind so that, as the Gospel puts it, it fails to see what it sees and to grasp what it knows.15 The first kind of mental operation occurs in genuine research, which of its nature proceeds step by step, but the second does not deserve to be called research, since it imposes on facts a manner of viewing them which originates in one's subjective inclinations.It is also common to talk about a message, and a code by which one reads and deciphers the message. The notion of a reading has replaced that of the knowledge of something, thus replacing the binding force of univocal knowledge with a plurality of possible readings. It is alleged that a single message can be read in different keys: if it is orthodox, it can be deciphered in a heterodox key; if heterodox, in an orthodox key This method, however, forgets that the text has a primitive, inherent, obvious and literal sense of its own, which must be understood before any reading, and that it sometimes does not admit of being read with the key with which the second reading proposes to read it. The conciliar texts, like any others, have, independent of the reading that may be made of them, an obvious and univocal readability, that is, a literal sense which is the basis of any other sense which may be found in them. Hermeneutical perfection consists in reducing the second reading to the first, which gives the true sense of the text. The Church, moreover, has never proceeded in any other way.The technique adopted by innovators in the post-conciliar period thus consists in illuminating or obscuring, glossing or reinforcing, individual parts of a text or of a truth. This is merely the abuse of that faculty of abstraction which the mind necessarily exercises when it examines any complex whole. It is a necessary condition of all discursive knowledge arrived at in time, as distinct from angelic intuition.To this they add another technique, characteristic of those who disseminate error: that of hiding one truth behind another so as to be able to behave as if the hidden truth were not only hidden but simply non-existent. When the Church, for example, is defined as the People of God on a journey, the other side of the truth is hidden, namely that the Church also includes the blessed who have already reached the end of the journey, and that they are the more important part of the Church, since they are the part in which the purpose of the Church and of the universe has been fulfilled. In the next stage, the truth which was still part of the message but which has been put in the background will end up being dropped from the message altogether, through the rejection of the cult of the saints.The procedure we have described is often effected by using the conjunction but. One has merely to know the full meaning of words in order to recognize the hidden intention of this school of interpreters. For example, to attack the principle of the religious life they write: Le fondement de la vie religieuse n’est pas remis en question, mais son style de réalisation [“The foundations of the religious life are not in question, but the style of its realization”]. 16 Again, to get round the dogma of the virginity of Our Lady in partu [while giving birth] 17 they say that doubts are possible non d'ailleurs sur la croyance ellemême dont nul ne conteste les titres dogmatiques, mais sur son objet exacte, dont il ne serait pas assuré qu’il comprenne le miracle de l’enfantement sans lésion corporelle [“Not concerning the belief itself, the dogmatic credentials of which are not contested by anyone, but as to its exact object, which does not necessarily include the miracle of giving birth without rupture of the body”]. 18 And to attack the enclosure of nuns they write: La cloiture doit etre maintenuey mais elle doit etre adaptee selon les conditions des temps et des lieux [“Enclosure must be maintained, but it must be adapted according to circumstances of time and place”]. 19The particle mais [but]20 is equivalent to magis [more],21 from which it derives, and thus while appearing to maintain ones position on the virginity of Our Lady, on the religious life and on the enclosure of nuns, one is asserting that what is more important than a principle, are the ways of adapting it to times and places. But what sort of principle is inferior rather than superior to its realizations? Is it not obvious that there are styles which destroy, rather than express, the fundamentals they are meant to embody? At this rate one might just as well say that the fundamentals of gothic style are not in dispute, only the way they are realized; and then proceed to abolish the pointed arch.This use of but often occurs in the speeches of the council fathers, when they lay down in their principal assertion something which will be destroyed by the but in a secondary assertion, so that the latter becomes what is principally asserted. So too at the Synod of Bishops in 1980, French language group B wrote: “The group adheres without reserve to Humanae Vitae, but the dichotomy between the rigidity of law and pastoral flexibility must be overcome.” Thus, adherence to the encyclical becomes purely verbal, because bending the law to conform with human weakness is more important than the encyclical’s teaching.22 The formula of those who wanted the admission of divorced and remarried people to the Eucharist was more forthright: Il ne s'agit pas de renoncer à l’exigence évangelique, mais de reconnaître la possibilitypour tous d'etre réintégrés dans la communion ecclésiale [“It is not a question of abandoning the demands of the Gospel, but of recognizing the possibility that all people can be reintegrated into the ecclesial community”].23
At the same Synod on the Family in 1980, the use of the word deepening24 cropped up among the innovators. While seeking the abandonment of the doctrine taught in Humanae Vitae, they confessed complete adherence to it, but asked that the doctrine be deepened; meaning not that it be strengthened by new arguments but changed into something else. The process of deepening would apparently consist in searching and searching until one arrived at an opposite conclusion.Even more important is the fact that “circiterisms” were sometimes used in the drawing up of the conciliar documents themselves. These inexact formulations were deliberately introduced so that post-conciliar hermeneutics could gloss or reinforce whichever ideas it liked. Nous Vexprimons d'une facon diplomatique, mais apres le Concile nous tirerons les conclusions implicites [“We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the council we will draw out the implicit conclusions”]. 25 It is a diplomatic style, that is, as the word itself implies, double, in which the text is formulated to accord with its interpretation, thus reversing the natural order of thinking and writing.[All bolding is my emphasis]15. Matthew, 13:13.16. “The foundations of the religious life are not in question, but the style of its realization.” Report of the Union des Superieurs de France, 3 vols, cited in Itineraires, No. 155, 1971, p.43.17. “While giving birth.”18. “Not concerning the belief itself, the dogmatic credentials of which are not contested by anyone, but as to its exact object, which does not necessarily include the miracle of giving birth without rupture of the body.” See J.H. Nicolas, La virginite de Marie, Fribourg, Switzerland 1957, p. 18, who argues against the unorthodox thesis of A. Mitterer, Dogma und Biologie, Vienna 1952.19. “Enclosure must be maintained, but it must be adapted according to circumstances of time and place.” Superieurs de France, op. cit.20. French mais; English “but”; Italian ma.21.Latin for “more.”22. O.R., 15 October 1980.23 “It is not a question of abandoning the demands of the Gospel, but of recognizing the possibility that all people can be reintegrated into the ecclesial community.” LCI., No.555, 13 October 1980, p. 12.24. Approfondimento in Italian, with a connotation of exploration and research.25. “We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the council we will draw out the implicit conclusions.” Statement by Fr. Schillebeeckx in the Dutch magazine De Bazuin, No. 16, 1965, quoted in French translation in Itinéraires, No. 155, 1971, p.40.(Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, trans. John P. Parsons (Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1996), pp. 104-107)
(It is interesting to note that the techniques used in the 1980 Synod on the Family appear eerily similar to the results of the recent Synod of the Family as seen in Amoris Laetitia - see here and here).
There are several things to point out with regards to the above exposition by Amerio. First, he describes “circiterisms” as involving malicious intent. He also stresses that the word “but” is used to complete the circiterism by guiding the principle to different and erroneous conclusion. However, the word "but" appears to be an easy example as Amerio does not say it must always be used in executing a circiterism.
Next, a circiterism takes on three different techniques, of which one or more can be utilized:
1. “It consists in referring to an indistinct and confused term as if it were something well established and defined, and then extracting or excluding from it the element one needs to extract or exclude.” (E.g., "The Spirit of the Council")2. “The notion of a reading has replaced that of the knowledge of something, thus replacing the binding force of univocal knowledge with a plurality of possible readings." (E.g., subverting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - no salvation outside the Church)3. “... hiding one truth behind another so as to be able to behave as if the hidden truth were not only hidden but simply non-existent.” (E.g., conflating the ends of marriage)
Different Types of Circiterisms? Examples from Vatican II and Popes
In this section we will examine a handful of possible circiterisms from Church documents and recent Popes. Please note, we do not wish to accuse any Pope of being nefarious here. There is a possibility to expand upon Amerio’s concept of a “circiterism” by identifying unintentional circiterisms. If material and formal error can exist, then perhaps a sort of material and formal circiterism may also exist. An unintentional circiterism may stem from an innocent person studying nefarious sources that seek to obscure doctrine. The innocent person forming their own circiterism is not necessarily at fault because they are victims of being influenced by the nefarious source.
The first examples come from the Second Vatican Council. It is no secret that the Vatican II document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was guided by Annibale Bugnini. After the council he was the head of the commission that created the Novus Ordo Mass. Fr. Bouyer documented Bugnini lying to Pope Paul VI and the commission concerning how to proceed in reforming the Mass. Bugnini also demonstrated his intention to water the Mass down to be more acceptable to protestants in the often-misquoted L'Osservatore Romano piece. Hence, Sacrosanctum Concilium may have intentional circiterisms, or at the very least unintentional depending on who really wrote certain sections of the document.
Here are some examples:
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters." [Emphasis mine](Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36)
Result: The vast majority of Novus Ordo Masses do not utilize Latin.
Again:
"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30." [Emphasis mine](Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116)
How many Novus Ordo Masses use Gregorian chant now?
Here is a possible example of an unintended circiterism from Pope John Paul II and his opinion on the death penalty:
“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” [Emphasis mine](Evangelium Vitae, 56)
John Paul II correctly identifies purposes of the penal system to, “redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom” (EV, 56). However, he either discards or is not aware of full aspects of retributive justice which can demand the death penalty based on the severity of the crime. John Paul II focuses on rehabilitation, deterrent, and protecting society (all true), but not the fullness of retributive justice.
Notice what Amerio stated:
“To this they add another technique, characteristic of those who disseminate error: that of hiding one truth behind another so as to be able to behave as if the hidden truth were not only hidden but simply non-existent.”
In this instance, an aspect of retributive justice is what becomes “non-existent," hidden behind everything else John Paul II listed. Again, I stress that we do not know what John Paul II intentions were. Amerio coins the term “circiterism” against those who use it with malicious intent. What we are doing here is pointing out the possibly for unintentional circiterisms. The emergence of which can occur if one is influenced unduly by certain schools of thought as Wojtyla was by the New Theology and more so in his excessive philosophy of personalism. The years of excluding a portion of the truth about retributive justice now results in Pope Francis calling the death penalty a moral evil that must be eliminated altogether.
One final example of a possible circiterism is from Pope Francis himself when talking about the “commandments.” There is also an element of ambiguity in his statement as well. Again, we are not sure if Francis is intentionally trying to obscure things here:
"The Law however exists. But it exists in another way: the same Law, the Ten Commandments, but in another way, because it could no longer be justified by itself once the Lord Jesus had come....Hence, the Apostle’s conviction is that the Law certainly possesses a positive function — as a pedagogue moving forward — but it is a function that is limited in time. Its duration cannot be extended too far because it is linked to the maturation of individuals and their choice of freedom. Once one has come to faith, the Law exhausts its propaedeutic value and must give way to another authority. What does this mean? That after the Law we can say, “We believe in Jesus Christ and do what we want”? No! The Commandments exist, but they do not justify us. What justifies is Jesus Christ. The Commandments must be observed, but they do not give us justice; there is the gratuitousness of Jesus Christ, the encounter with Jesus Christ that freely justifies us. The merit of faith is receiving Jesus. The only merit: opening the heart. So what do we do with the Commandments? We must observe them, but as an aid to the encounter with Jesus Christ.How do I live? In the fear that if I do not do this, I will go to hell? Or do I live with that hope too, with that joy of the gratuitousness of salvation in Jesus Christ? It is a good question. And also a second one: do I scorn the Commandments? No. I observe them, but not as absolutes, because I know that it is Jesus Christ who justifies me."[All emphases mine](Pope Francis, General Audience, August 18, 2021: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2021/documents/papa-francesco_20210818_udienza-generale.html)
Pope Francis states that he observes the Commandments, “but not as absolutes.” Francis clearly explains that the “Commandments” he is talking about are the 10 Commandments. He also differentiates the Commandments that must be observed from the entirety of the Mosaic law that contain things which no longer need to be observed.
There are two troubling things here. The most obvious one is that Pope Francis, in a similar fashion to what is seen in Amerio’s examples, states that we must observe the Commandments, but they are not absolutes. This is concerning as the Commandments are absolutes because they deal with natural law as authored by God. This appears to be a very bold circiterism.
Additionally, Francis takes the true concept of being justified by Christ via gratuity but does not mention we are also justified by works through the merits and grace of Christ. This seems to be an ambiguous phrasing of justification. It is either unintentional in order to try and emphasize that we are not justified by works of the Law or it is intentional in order to enhance the later statement that the Commandments are not absolute. Hence, if the Commandments have no way to justify you, then they are not absolute because justification is not reliant upon them. Francis could possibly be fulfilling all three points of Amerio’s definition of “circiterism.”
Regardless of intention, we see that the way theology is sometimes approached in the post-conciliar period goes beyond mere ambiguity. Precision in text is needed. A word and its accompanying definition must adhere to the foundation of its literal sense. Truths must be taken at their whole, without confusion or hiding elements. The bizarre affirmation of a principle and then its subsequent rejection based on circumstance renders all truths mutable and “not absolute.” The Modernists of the early 20th century were bold and straightforward with their doctrine. The neo-Modernists and erroneous philosophies that gained traction in the latter half of the 20th century were more subtle. They claim victims of the well-intentioned with not only ambiguities but also circiterisms.