The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), meeting at Seton
Hall University, approved by an overwhelming vote a document on the relationship
between bishops and theologians. The statement, entitled "Doctrinal Responsibilities,"
had a rocky voyage through the bishops' conference until it was approved
on a vote of 214-9. For almost six years the NCCB Committee on Doctrine
studied and revised the text which had originally been unanimously proposed
by the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) and the Canon Law
Society of America (CLSA) in 1983.
When the NCCB assembly first considered "Doctrinal Responsibilities"
in November 1987, it was called "fatally flawed" by Archbishop Francis
Stafford of Denver. Although the Committee on Doctrine defended their document,
many bishops were confused by the questions raised about the meaning and
consequences of the statement. Debate came to a halt when a vote count
on a motion to table the document revealed the absence of a quorum.
Last November, the Committee on Doctrine planned to bring a revised
text to the bishops, but a last minute intervention by the Vatican Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith again raised questions about the document.
The Committee on Doctrine withdrew "Doctrinal Responsibilities" from consideration
on the floor to allow for consultation with the Vatican.
Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb of Mobile, chairman of the NCCB Committee
on Doctrine, met with the congregation in March 1989 while the American
archbishops were meeting with the pope and Vatican officials in Rome. Modifications
were made in "Doctrinal Responsibilities" by the committee staff which
satisfied the Vatican so that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the
congregation, could write Archbishop Lipscomb to express the congregation's
satisfaction with the way the conference dealt with the matter. He did
not, however, give formal approval to the document since the congregation
felt it would be inappropriate to do this to a conference document.
Those who have been involved with the document since its inception with
the CTSA and the CLSA, such as Leo O'Donovan, S.J., the new president of
Georgetown University, believe that the document has remained essentially
the same through out all its revisions. The Vatican and episcopal critics
of the earlier drafts wanted additions that would emphasize the role of
the bishops as members of the magisterium. Anything that appeared to put
the bishops and theologians on a equal plane was considered suspect. The
document stressed that theologians and bishops have different but complimentary
roles. In addition, critics wanted it clear that the bishops were not bound
by the procedures outlined for resolving disputes. The committee always
thought these points were clear, but it accepted numerous amendments which
ultimately satisfied its critics.
"Doctrinal Responsibilities" is divided into three parts. Part one describes
the rights and responsibilities of theologians and bishops in the church.
This 20-page, double-spaced section was never meant to be a definitive
treatment of the question but merely an theological introduction to the
rest of the document. The Committee on Doctrine is also working on a more
extensive statement on the teaching role of bishops.
Part two calls for cooperation and informal dialogue between bishops
and theologians. It notes that cooperation between theologians and bishops
has in fact been good in this country and suggests areas of further collaboration.
Part three describes possible procedures for formal dialogue to resolve
disputes that might arise in a diocese between a theologian and his or
her bishop. The procedures are optional and either the theologian or the
bishops can refuse to use them. In fact, the procedures are imminently
logical and simply describe the way in which two reasonable people would
go about settling a dispute. In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith might consider adopting the procedures for its dialogues with
theologians.
The procedures call for four steps to clarify the content of what is
at issue before any judgment is made by the bishop. First, the facts must
be gathered: what did the theologian actually say or write? This is important
because often accusations against theologians are based on faulty information
or hearsay. If the complaints are found to be inaccurate at this stage
in the process, there is no need to go on.
Second, after the facts are clear, there still may be questions about
what the theologian meant by what he said or wrote. This must also be clarified.
A theologian cannot be considered unorthodox simply because he is misinterpreted.
The third stage of the process is probably the most difficult--determining
the relationship of what the theologian wrote with Catholic tradition.
The term "Catholic tradition" refers to the whole range of church teaching
grounded in the word of God, especially in the Scriptures, and received
by the church through the centuries. Such an understanding must respect
the hierarchy of truths that recognizes the various levels of teaching
authority. A doctrine defined at an ecumenical council carries more weight
than a teaching expressed as a papal opinion.
Even bishops can disagree about what is Catholic tradition. For example,
the discussion of condoms in the AIDS statement of the administrative board
of the United States Catholic Conference was attacked by a number of bishops.
The episcopal authors of the statement, however, argued that it was in
keeping with the traditional teaching on the obligation to reduce the evil
consequences of one's actions. The NCCB might well have used well have
used the procedures in "Doctrinal Responsibilities" to resolve this dispute
among bishops.
If the theologian is in fact teaching contrary to Catholic tradition,
the fourth step in the process asks, "So what?" What are the pastoral implications
of the teaching? If the teaching will have little or no effect on the life
of the church it may not be worth proceeding.
Many possible outcomes can result from the process of formal doctrinal
dialogue. The issues may be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties
at any stage of the process. Or the issues may remain unresolved with the
decision that no further action needs to be taken. The bishop may determine
that it is an area of legitimate pluralism, or he may decide to publicly
or privately declare that the position is in error. Archbishop Rembert
Weakland of Milwaukee, for example, publicly stated that the position on
abortion of Marquette University Professor Maguire was not consistent with
church teaching.
A few bishops, such as Archbishop Stafford, feared that the procedures
reflected the litigious nature of American society. On the other hand,
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago said that he had already successfully
used parts of the procedure in settling disputes in his archdiocese. The
hope of Committee on Doctrine is that the procedures will not be used frequently,
but that informal dialogue will settle most questions. On the other hand,
Archbishop Lipscomb said that if the procedures had been in place earlier,
the crisis at the Catholic University of American over moral theologian
Charles Curran may not have escalated to the point it did.
In fact the relations between theologians and bishops in the United
States have usually been marked by cooperation rather than conflict. At
both the local and national level, bishops use theologians as consultants
on pastoral letters, as theological advisors, and speech writers. Archbishop
John May of St. Louis, president of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, strongly defended theologians in a speech before the Catholic
Theological Society of America a week before the bishops met at Seton Hall.
"There are too many sweeping accusations leveled at the theological
soundness and credal fidelity of the theologians," he said. "There are
too many vague but insistent attacks, telling bishops that the theologians
will supplant them in their teaching office or ignore their pastoral guidance
or lead the people of God into antagonism, division and virtual schism."
He compared these sweeping charges to those "that flourished and destroyed
so many during the McCarthy period." A footnote to the text referred to
articles and letters by James V. Schall, S.J., James Hitchcock, and Ralph
McInerny in Crisis, a journal published by Michael Novak.
"Our experience in this country in general has not been one of either
heterodoxy or of effective schism," he said. "On the contrary, theologians
have given great emphasis to cooperation with bishops in the doctrinal
and in the more obviously pastoral ministries of the church. . . . Bishop
after bishop could tell of the collaboration he has received from men and
women theologians as members of diocesan theological boards, faculty for
his seminary, conciliar and curial experts, instructors in continuing education
of the clergy and religious and those involved in adult education, advisors
and even vicars for theological affairs, and as dogmatic, scriptural, or
moral consultants."
Archbishop May also responded to an article by Joseph McNeal in Commonweal
( 4/21) stating that, in the minds of theologians, statements made at the
Rome meeting of archbishops and curial officials "can only be the latest
Vatican and episcopal vote of no confidence in their scholarship." The
archbishop told the theologians that no one saw the need to defend them
because "the soundness of our relationship with you seemed so obvious,
so taken for granted, so unquestionable."
The theologians at the CTSA meeting were cheered by Archbishop May's
defense of them. Much to the surprise of the press, no Cologne-like statement
came out of the CTSA meeting. Nor was their any defiant response to the
new oath of fidelity or the new profession of faith issued by the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last March (see "Profession
of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity," by Ladislas Orsy, S.J., and "A University
Perspective on the 'Oath of Fidelity,'" by Quentin L. Quade, Am. 5/15).
Archbishop May's speech deserves credit for defusing tensions at the
meeting. Nor did the theologians want to pass any half-baked resolutions
since the bishops would be considering "Doctrinal Responsibilities" the
following week. They preferred to call for a more scholarly study of the
issues. In addition, there was some reluctance to simply tag along on a
European initiative that did not adequately reflect the situation in the
United States.
For example, the Cologne statement recognized the right of bishops to
issue a mandatum (an authorization to teach) to a Catholic theologian at
a German university. But since these are state universities, the American
situation with Catholic universities is quite different. Likewise, the
Cologne statement said nothing about the role of women in the church, something
of deep concern in the United States. As a result, the CTSA asked it administrative
board to draft its own statement for consideration by the membership either
in the Fall or next Spring.
The CTSA also asked its president to convey the concerns of it members
about the oath and profession of faith to the NCCB president. The also
call for a joint study of the issues with the Canon Law Society of America
and other professional organizations.
Despite the efforts of the CTSA and the NCCB to stress the positive
aspects of relations between American bishops and theologians, everyone
acknowledges that moments of tension can and will arise. It is especially
in the area of moral theology and discussions of ministry that conflicts
occur. Theologians teaching the acceptability of birth control, women's
ordination, and a married clergy have come into conflict with bishops and
the Vatican in the past. Many priest theologians simply ignore these topics
rather than get into trouble with church authorities or teach what they
do not believe.
As a result, lay theologians and lay journals are becoming the spokespersons
on these issues. The decline in the number of priests is adding to this
declericalization of theological discussion. This may ultimately be good
for the church. In any case, it will definitively decouple theological
scholarship from clerical obedience and radically change the relationship
between bishops and theologians.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, July 1, 1989
Copyright © 1989 by America
Press
All rights reserved
See also