I just poured over this article by Michael G. Lawler, professor emeritus, and Todd A. Salzman, a professor of Catholic theology at Creighton. It analyzes the roles and boundaries of magisterium and theologians/lay teachers/catechists.
I found too many nuggets and quotes to seize upon, so if you'd like a reading companion to the article, I pulled a bunch of things that stuck out to me and commented below. It's lengthy, but much of it is quotes and my explanations are only suggestions from a humble blogger - Enjoy!
"To avoid conflicts with the magisterium that may lead to investigation and censure, the theologian should focus his or her efforts on explaining and defending magisterial positions."
- At first glance, this guideline seems a bit alienating. Why can't theologians be clever, reflective, and faithful enough to initiate thinking on a certain issue or position? After thinking about it for a moment, I realize that this is dangerous ground. The laity, at least in the Catholic Church where we affirm a hierarchy of leadership and trust our teaching body of bishops and priest, must not get ahead of those we entrust with interpreting the deposit of faith. However, much like with Scripture study and reading, I think it is an activity we can undertake mutually with our leadership. I think rather than approaching such a potential conflict with skepticism and frustration, it is an opportunity for theologians and lay people to test the things they come to in investigation of their faith by sharing it with other people, especially those who have been consecrated in their lives toward that end.
"Theologians considered unsafe—those whose positions differ from the magisterium’s on open or noninfallible questions—are discounted. This procedure is a double-edged sword. One edge permits the magisterium to claim that the pronouncement has been made with theological consultation and agreement; the other edge provokes a response from theologians who have not been consulted."
- This is a touchy issue. In most situations, people thinking critically and analytically will pursue radical thought and disagreement in hopes of strengthening their case. Anticipating arguments can help your original case. However, in cases of truth, it is difficult to seek out those who profess things we know to be false. Would you want to have an atheist in the room when elucidating the Christological two-natured doctrines? Some people would say yes; I'd lean towards no. I think a legit alternative here is to have firmly confident Catholics play the devil's advocate and put on a mask of skepticism to scrutinize theology. What's the difference between that and a legit skeptic? This person's end is still truth, Christian truth, while the atheist is seeking to tear the whole thing down. You sort that one out further if you'd like.
"In fact, however, many theologians are forced into the inaccurate classification of dissenters because they have been deprived of a consultative voice that might have been helpful in the beginning."
"Polarization permeates the theological community as well. The magisterium, by consulting only those it expects to agree with it, implicitly endorses one school of theology over another and provides a quasi-sanction for that school’s work. Then debates are settled by a claim of authority, as when Bishop Olmsted ruled that St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix was no longer Catholic."
- The flipside of this issue is alienating those who believe themselves to be faithful Catholics by labeling their scrutiny and criticism as overly radical or even heretical. It's tough when you ace out someone who believes themself to be faithful because you may have alienated them to the point of making them what you claim to be by that action of allegation. I'm not familiar with the processes of institutional elucidation and choosing those who help to be the filters, but I imagine edgy, radical folks are left out of consideration, and this is where the alienation comes from. If I were them, I'd feel pushed aside and belittled. My hope is that those on the fringes who are definitely faithfully and theologically Catholic will keep their hearts burning and keep trying to bring challenging ideas into dialogue with the faith. Easier said than done.
"The lack of broad theological consultation, which freezes out the “unsafe,” also damages the entire body of the faithful who detect the tension between the magisterium and a large majority of theologians. These tensions are frequently aired in the media and often escalate into outright hostility."
- Here comes the alienation that so many Catholics feel and that makes Catholicism so easily criticizable by Protestants and non-Christians. By having a centralized and institutionalized and hierarchical organization to our Church, we naturally create tensions just by virtue of how things transpire. Our Church still is home to plurality of belief. However, Catholics are asked to approach creedal and moral beliefs with the attitude that even if they can't completely say they believe and understand something entirely, they will still profess a hope for deeper understanding and grasp when they pronounce "I believe." By belonging to our Church, you're not asked to agree with everything and understand it entirely, but you are asked to profess belief in those things as a pledge that you will make conscientious effort to wrestle with those parts of being Catholic that are most difficult, troubling, or perplexing to you.
The side-effects to this are two major things...
(1) People will either leave an issue of tension behind them, unincorporating it from their faith and creating buffet or pick-and-mix Catholicism, or forsake active Catholicism as a result of one or more of these tensions, creating lapsed Catholics. This is easily fixable if we encourage an atmosphere of conscientious dissent that seeks to investigate disagreements and incomplete understandings rather than use them as cause for laziness or apathy.
(2) The disagreements between authoritarian decisions and loudly dissenting priests or laity become framed in disjunction and disconnect because of how people present themselves/their thoughts or how the media responds. If priests and laity alike would present their dissent in terms of seeking deeper understanding and a desire for perpetual dialogue to increase understanding, the disagreements could be baptized into good faith rather than attention-grabbing and alienating episodes.
"Since the [Second Vatican] council, however, theology has become largely a lay profession exercised predominantly in both Catholic and non-Catholic colleges and universities. This change has introduced voices, especially women’s and third world voices, that had never before been part of the conversation."
- This is a beautifully good thing. The perspective of women helps to widen the scope of eyes and voices that witness to the faith, and the rise of "third-world" Christianity only deepens it. But, since the thoughts are new, it will take time for people to grow used to the outlooks of the newer voices. It doesn't excuse prejudice or ignoring these voices, but hopefully it will give pause and patience to those pushing too hard for the growth to continue. Again, easier said than done to be patient, especially with those who don't care to hear these newer voices.
"Professor Crowley describes sensus fidelium as 'the mutual inspiration by the Holy Spirit of teachers and learners in the Church, the pastorum et fidelium conspiratio...the delicately balanced relationship between the teaching function of the church and the role of the laity in arriving at an explicit knowledge of the content of faith.' True dialogue recognizes that both are gifted with 'the charism of learner-teacher,' the charism that is available to the whole communion—church, bishops, theologians and the entire body of the faithful alike."
- This is just a great understanding of the authority vested in the people of the Church as a whole. Leadership, especially in teaching and exclusively for sacramental worship, is entrusted to the clergy, but all baptized people - the universal call to holiness - have the gift of "learner-teacher," no matter what vocational call they answer.
"For its part, the magisterium must be patient in allowing open debate on open, controversial topics among theologians and slow to intervene prematurely to close debates. That patience requires what John Paul II called a 'dialogue of charity' between the magisterium and theologians, without threat of disciplinary or punitive action (“Ut Unum Sint,” Nos. 17, 51 and 60)."
- I really love this part. While not settling the question entirely of "safe" v. "unsafe" theologians, it encourages those issues to be aired out patiently and with understanding. Grievous errors in dialogue must be confronted; those who speak anti-truth still occupy a very dark grey place on the spectrum. However, critical voices ought to heard with patience, so that their qualms and comments, if truly advancing false point, can be fully and clearly refuted. The conversation must be a patient and open process of charitable reception. Listening up, down, and across is crucial to complete conversation.
"Bishop [Gerald] Kicanas [of Tucson] asserts: 'Clearly there needs to be room in an academic community for disagreement, debate, and a clash of ideas even in theology. Such debate and engagement can clarify and advance our understanding. In discussions with local bishops, faculty need to be able to disagree and question with mutual respect.'"
- And good ol' Kicanas brings it home by adding the caveat of respect - not just patience and charity but respect. We must add a layer of dignity to our exchanges. Careful listening and the offer of opportunities for voices to make their points must all happen under a sense of dignity, that each person, no matter how true or false their point may be, gets the treatment that they are a child of God. Each person must receive from us Catholic people the sense that their words are received by someone who views them as a valid, human, dignified source of insight. Disagreements must be colored by interpersonal care for one another. This is how we can convey our faithfulness and Gospel values despite differences of opinion or belief, whether within our Catholic Church, across the lines of the Christian Church, or through the spectrum of human belief.
awesome Dan ! Well thought out insights!
ReplyDelete