Thanks to Susan and Patrick

 

I would like to thank Patrick and Susan as the inspiration for this posting—Patrick for his earlier posting “Governing in the Church—one among many reasons for libertas ecclesiae” and Susan for hers “What Role for Theologians.” While they both may be scratching their respective heads as they think about how could they have been catalysts for what follows, I can take them off the hook by stating that elsewhere in the Catholic news services reports of the issues they addressed have recently appeared.

My task today is to talk a bit about the question of how ecclesial governance is not so much an exercise in authority as it is an exercise of service that must remain free and how the role of the theologian plays into all this. So, here goes:

I had previously seen the short essay written by Professor Regina Schulte to which Susan referred us that expresses Schulte’s outrage over the rebuke issued to Professors Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding their recent book The Sexual Person. The twenty-four page September 15, 2010 report of the Committee on Doctrine can be downloaded HERE: Download Sexual_Person_2010-09-15[1].

At the outset I am intrigued that Schulte concentrates on the last thirty to forty years by asserting that “the Catholic church [sic] has seen no progress in formulating a contemporary understanding of human sexuality...” In reading her claim, I wondered what developments in human sexuality have occurred during these three-plus decades that had not already occurred in the several thousand preceding years which would necessitate a response of reconsideration by the Church which has been around for two thousand years?

The answer, or at least the beginning of one, comes in the context of two different views of Church authority that have appeared in this recent three-plus decades. The first view contains the perspectives of Paul VI and John Paul II; the second contains the views of many contemporary moral theologians/theological ethicists. In short, the Schulte project brings to the surface the opposition between what I see as the magisterium and the shadow magisterium.

Regarding issues of sexual ethics, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) set the stage for Schulte’s essay. She encapsulates this in her statement: “By rejecting the book as in opposition to ‘authentic’ teaching, the bishops once again reeled this vital issue back to the 1966 [sic] papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. It was then [sic] that Pope Paul VI stunned the church [sic] by writing that allowing contraceptive practice as a moral choice for married couples would break with traditional church teaching.” With all due respect to Professor Schulte, Paul VI said a great deal more in the encyclical, and it is hyperbole to argue that he “stunned” the Church in saying what he did. Tolle, lege: Humanae Vitae.

Knowing that the teaching authority—the magisterium—is an issue in this posting and that the nature of the magisterium is of major concern to Professor Schulte, here is an important, sensitive, and correct pastoral statement offered by Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae that explains his proper authority and competence that is so much a source of contention with some theologians of the present age:

 

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church. Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions. (N. 6)

 

Professor Schulte then makes an argument from “democracy” when she contends that a majority of the laity “had already concluded that artificial birth control was a necessity.” The fact that a majority of Catholics may vote for candidate X rather than candidate Y; or, the fact that a majority of Catholics think this rather than that does not make doctrine of the Church. If it did, what could we say about the views of a majority of Catholics on sensitive subjects in the past such as slavery? But does Professor Schulte or, for that matter, anyone else really know what a majority of Catholics think about the “necessity” of birth control? Some may employ it, but do they consider it a “necessity”? Allow me to posit that no one really knows the answer to this question posed by Schulte’s assertion.

Professor Schulte then goes on to mention some of the current, explosive issues of the day that have been addressed by competent Church authorities and others: surrogate motherhood; sex-change surgery; IVF; cohabitation before marriage; physical expression of homosexual love; same-sex “marriage”; abortion; and, “the growing and unsustainable overpopulation of our planet.” We know that competent Church authorities have addressed all these and other important issues in recent years; and, some moral theologians/theological ethicists have registered their opposition of Church teachings with countering opinions. Taking note of these opposing views and in the exercise of his competence and legitimate authority, John Paul said this in Veritatis Splendor [more Tolle, lege HERE]:

 

In their desire, however, to keep the moral life in a Christian context, certain moral theologians have introduced a sharp distinction, contrary to Catholic doctrine, between an ethical order, which would be human in origin and of value for this world alone, and an order of salvation, for which only certain intentions and interior attitudes regarding God and neighbour would be significant. This has then led to an actual denial that there exists, in Divine Revelation, a specific and determined moral content, universally valid and permanent. The word of God would be limited to proposing an exhortation, a generic paraenesis, which the autonomous reason alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives which are truly “objective”, that is, adapted to the concrete historical situation. Naturally, an autonomy conceived in this way also involves the denial of a specific doctrinal competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium with regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called “human good”. Such norms would not be part of the proper content of Revelation, and would not in themselves be relevant for salvation. No one can fail to see that such an interpretation of the autonomy of human reason involves positions incompatible with Catholic teaching. (N. 37)

 

John Paul II’s correction did not go unanswered. Schulte presents her challenge to this by stating that “It is apparent that the hierarchy has usurped the entire teaching office—the “magisterium”—for themselves... [Here Schulte offers her take on the role of “theologians” and the sensus fidei] It would seem, then, that the appropriate exercise of their distinctive roles requires that bishops collaborate rather than compete.” Another influential theologian’s voice has stated that, “Moral theologians were quite angry about [Veritatis Splendor], especially with the implicit charge that moral theologians were teaching moral relativism. Inasmuch as we search for moral truth, to suggest that we were advancing moral relativism is probably the most serious attack to be made on us.” I does not appear that the bishops or any other competent authorities are trying to “compete” with anyone; rather, they are fulfilling the service responsibilities with which they have been charged in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. The competition comes from voices, quoting from the same source just mentioned, which argue that there are no longer universal moral responses to ethical issues; rather, these voices further contend that it is the duty of “contemporary moralists” to help “persons to rightly realize their moral truth.” Well, when all is said and done, this is nothing more than relativism and subjectivism, and this was of the concern of Paul VI and John Paul II, as I know it is of the concern of Benedict XVI as well.

Regina Schulte concludes that theologians are not mere catechists because they have a role to move Catholic moral theology forward. If that is the case, where is the “forward,” i.e., what is the destination? The Committee on Doctrine has answered that question in the context of The Sexual Person, and their decision is well reasoned and demonstrates the proper exercise of their teaching role that is once again defined by the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. The remaining issue is this: will the bishops remain free to exercise properly their competence and their service of authority to the Church? Regina Schulte does not seem to think so.

 

RJA sj