On Defending the Question

No need to defend the question, Eduardo, it is a fair one and you pose it well. Your distinction among the three categories I introduced is useful, though I think I would not say that the faithful Catholic intellectual's work is only in categories (2) and (3) (ie exploring uncertainties and casuistic applications)) and that there is really nothing to say about category (1), i.e. the bedrock truths. It is still important to be able to articulate in reasoned terms why abortion, for example, is a moral evil. While we accept that truth as a matter of authority, we also should be prepared to engage seriously and honestly with the arguments to the contrary using the tools of reason, and without relying on authority exclusively. So, why should our acceptance of authority make our arguments any less interesting or important? Our arguments should be evaluated on the basis of their coherence and persuasiveness.

Furthermore, this discussion raises the very vexed question of whether the Magisterium changes. If it does, what role do faithful Catholic thinkers. theorists, intellectuals etc. play in that process? How does one understand, address, use, confront or even challenge authority in the face of one's obligation to accept authority? If one is a Noonanite, one will accept that the process of change does happen, and that Catholic intellectuals have played a part in the process that may involve some kind of critique of magisterial teachings. If one is a Dullesite (Dulleser?), one challenges the premise of change, and thinks very differently about the relationship of the Catholic intellectual and authority.

Eduardo makes the excellent point that we are much more explicit about the nature and binding effect of authority than secular thinkers who do in fact adhere to authority but don't admit it, which makes the Catholic "case" a somewhat different and perhaps more interesting one. I agree, though I would add that this puts us one up. More important, the distinction points to a cultural ambivalence about the very concept of "authority," which I think is reflected most starkly in Eduardo's basic question: why should we take seriously anyone who accepts "authority"? That is a question that reveals how fundamentally our world view has been unmoored from the religious vision.

--Mark