I would like to thank Steve Shiffrin for his post “Father Dulles and Church Authority: A Response to Mike Scaperlanda.” I am grateful to Steve for his post which serves as a helpful catalyst to continue the discussion that has been taking place at Mirror of Justice regarding academic freedom and related issues.
In candor, I share the “wise remarks” of Cardinal Dulles to which Steve makes reference in when he quotes Michael S’s earlier post. Later on Steve raises the challenges posed in Robert J. Egan, S.J.’s recent article published in Commonweal that questions the Church’s teachings on who can be ordained and who cannot. Whether Bob Egan’s essay constitutes dissent or not is not the issue that I am addressing here. The subject of my posting today concentrates on the notion of authority and my right to support it knowing that there are those who may well disagree with me.
As members of the Church, we are familiar with authority. Some might argue that the Church began to exercise its authority in the early Councils such as Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451). But we cannot overlook the teachings of our Lord when he himself was present in this world and taught with authority—the passages from Saint John’s Gospel on the vinedresser, the vine, and branches is but one illustration of the exercise of authority. As individual members of the Church, the Body of Christ, we are free to embrace these teachings or not. But once we put on Christ and elect to hold on to him, surely we submit knowingly and freely to him and his vicar, the successor of Peter.
Having said this, I submit that God has given us intelligence to use right reason to enable the teachings of the Lord to apply to situations that did not previously exist. In this regard, I think we would agree that Christian teaching must be developed to tackle the moral issues posed by developments in biotechnology that necessitate a Christian response. This same intelligence should make us realize that there are persons and institutions of authority in the Church who hold the responsibility to make and enforce teachings that have or will become first principles and core beliefs of the Body of Christ. Indeed, there can be and often is discussion and debate as issues emerge and are identified. But there comes the time when the debate stops, decisions must be made, teachings clarified, and authority exercised.
But is this all that different from the deference we who are lawyers give to the authority of the law and those who hold certain positions as legislators, administrators, and judges? We may disagree with a law or a judicial interpretation, but until such time as it is changed via properly ordained channels, we who are members of the legal community are obliged to respect, honor, and observe what the authority has concluded if we choose to remain within the community that is regulated by the legal authority.
For those of us who are teachers and have been given authority to direct classes, to administer exams, and to evaluate student proficiency in the subjects we teach, authority is also present. A student may disagree with the magisterium of the professor and dissent from the instructor’s rules that regulate the course and the evaluation of the student, but that does not invalidate the professor’s authority that has been given to him or her by a larger authority, the university. The student is free to take the course offered by this professor as regulated by this professor, consistent with the rules imposed by the university. But once the student decides to remain in this course, he or she has chosen to be subject to the professor’s rightful authority.
The parallel of these two illustrations exists within the Church. The opportunity to debate or discuss is one thing. If there is a right to make these arguments, there is also reason to expect responses from those in authority who disagree.
Those who don’t hold authority, which should be exercised in Christ-like fashion, include the laity, most clerics and religious, and most theologians. Cardinal Dulles’s remarks do not raise for me the questions that Steve identifies in his post. When contrasting the views of Cardinal Ratzinger and Father Egan, we need to acknowledge the distinct authorities which each possesses and are different from one another. The question about the faithful’s inclusion in the Church was addressed by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium. Whether anyone wishes to contest that conclusion is up to the individual. But if this contention were to be made, it would contravene the authoritative statement of the Church on the matter. When Steve asks whether the reception of Church teachings by the faithful is necessary for the teaching to be definitive, I think he means whether they follow it or not. While some laity, clerics and religious have registered disagreement with particular Church teachings, their actions do not undermine the right of those whose duty it is to speak with authority.
I don’t think Steve has ignited a fiery debate, but he has stimulated a spirited exchange in which he is free to offer his views and others are free to respond. While the interlocutors may assert claims of truth against claims of falsehood, the final decisions about who is right and who is wrong will be made by those who have the authority to make them. Once again, I am in no position to quantify how many persons disagree with Church authority. But I am in a position to declare whether I agree with the authority or not. And as I do so, I am also free, as is my interlocutor, to present the justifications for the positions that I take and argue. While some may call it a defense and others may call it apologetics (both of which are correct), I’ll simply refer to it as an exercise of freedom for accepting and defending what the Church declares to be true, and I am grateful to the members of this site who welcome my participation notwithstanding the agreements we may share or the disagreements we may express. RJA sj
