Some argue that the Pope has a moral obligation to teach clearly or that, given his charism of infallibility, he should teach with clarity. Others have suggested that Popesplaining proves the futility of an infallible magisterium, since any interpretation of the infallible teacher remains fallible.I would contend that John 6 provides a valuable context for understanding the Papacy. Christ is an infallible teacher, yet his teachings often lack clarity. John 6 contains the Bread of Life discourse, which scandalized the audience of Christ:I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst (John 6:35).This statement led to confusion and grumbling among the crowd, as they asked:How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:52).Rather than offering a plain and direct clarification, Christ intensifies the very aspects of his teaching that his audience could not grasp:Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).The Jews were provoked to even greater consternation, leading to the departure of many: many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him (John 6:66). Was Christs message clear? The continuing theological debate on this passage proves otherwise. Catholics and Orthodox believe Christ was teaching in anticipation of the Eucharist. Many Protestants, on the other hand, interpret this lesson metaphorically as referring to faith in Jesus and his redemptive death. Thus, it is evident that Christs teaching did not generate unanimous understanding.Even St. Peter did not fully grasp the meaning of the discourse at the time. When Jesus asked the Twelve, Do you also wish to go away? (John 6:67), Peter responded, not with understanding, but with trust:Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God (John 6:68-69).St. Peter serves as the model for how one should assent to an infallible teachereven without complete comprehension. Indeed, reflecting on this reveals precisely why there is an advantage to having an infallible teacher. The truth is outside of St. Peter. His faith precedes his understanding. In modern theological debates, it is the attitude of private judgement and faithlessness that demands understanding precede faith (cf. St. John Henry Newmans Faith and Private Judgment).For those who think the Bread of Life discourse is an isolated incident, it is far from unique. Jesus was frequently criticized for not teaching clearly. In John 10, after Jesus spoke of being the Good Shepherd, there was again a division among the Jews because of these words (John 10:19), and they asked him, If you are the Christ, tell us plainly (John 10:24). Even his own disciples struggled with his teachings. After a series of enigmatic statements in John 16, they exclaimed: Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure! (John 16:29).Moreover, the disciples directly questioned Jesus on his use of parables. In Matthew 13, they asked, Why do you speak to them in parables? (Matthew 13:10). Jesus replied that to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13:11), indicating that his teachings were intentionally veiled for those not disposed to understand. Thus, his use of parables illustrates that Christs teachings, while infallible, were often delivered in a manner that concealed as much as they revealed.In light of this, Christs infallibility did not guarantee immediate or universal clarity in his teachings. Similarly, the Papacy, as a continuation of Christs teaching authority, may not always deliver teachings that are instantly intelligible to all. Yet, as St. Peter exemplifies, the faithful are called to assent to that authority with trust, even when full understanding is lacking. As St. Peter said, Lord, to whom shall we go? (John 6:68), we too must place our trust in the Churchs guidance, for there is nowhere else to turn.The Second Vatican Councils Lumen Gentium corroborates this Petrine principle of trusting in the infallible teacher, even without understanding. In section 25, it states:In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (LG 25).Further emphasizing the necessity of this assent, it continues:This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (LG 25).The document emphasizes that even when the Pope does not speak infallibly, his teachings still require religious submission. This reflects the model of trust that St. Peter exemplified, trusting in the authority of Christ even when the teaching was not fully understood. Lumen Gentium concludes by reminding the faithful:it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LG 25).Thus, as St. Peter trusted Christs infallibility without always comprehending his teachings, so too must the faithful trust the teaching authority of the Church.This is because faith is prior to understanding, just as understanding is prior to judgment and reason. As Pope St. John Paul II explains:In Scholastic theology, the role of philosophically trained reason becomes even more conspicuous under the impulse of Saint Anselms interpretation of theintellectus fidei. For the saintly Archbishop of Canterbury the priority of faith is not in competition with the search which is proper to reason. Reason in fact is not asked to pass judgement on the contents of faith, something of which it would be incapable, since this is not its function. Its function is rather to find meaning, to discover explanations which might allow everyone to come to a certain understanding of the contents of faith. Saint Anselm underscores the fact that the intellect must seek that which it loves: the more it loves, the more it desires to know. Whoever lives for the truth is reaching for a form of knowledge which is fired more and more with love for what it knows, while having to admit that it has not yet attained what it desires: To see you was I conceived; and I have yet to conceive that for which I was conceived (Ad te videndum factus sum; et nondum feci propter quod factus sum). The desire for truth, therefore, spurs reason always to go further; indeed, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already achieved. It is at this point, though, that reason can learn where its path will lead in the end: I think that whoever investigates something incomprehensible should be satisfied if, by way of reasoning, he reaches a quite certain perception of its reality, even if his intellect cannot penetrate its mode of being But is there anything so incomprehensible and ineffable as that which is above all things? Therefore, if that which until now has been a matter of debate concerning the highest essence has been established on the basis of due reasoning, then the foundation of ones certainty is not shaken in the least if the intellect cannot penetrate it in a way that allows clear formulation. If prior thought has concluded rationally that one cannot comprehend (rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse) how supernal wisdom knows its own accomplishments, who then will explain how this same wisdom, of which the human being can know nothing or next to nothing, is to be known and expressed?.The fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of philosophy is once again confirmed. Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of reason; and at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents (Fides et Ratio, 42).To have faith, is to be disposed to trust. It is only once this trust is secured that the intellect could ever be employed to attempt to understand the content of faith. That is the priority of faith.