ARTICLES

LETTERS

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

Let's Chat

What Southland Catechists Learn About Church Authority

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

"Let us pray together for a Church that becomes capable of genuinely holy conversation," was the peroration of a talk given by Dr. Richard Gaillardetz at this year's Los Angeles archdiocesan Religious Education Congress, held February 18-20 in Anaheim. Gaillardetz, a lay theologian at the University of Toledo in Ohio and a past presenter at the Religious Education Congress, titled this year's talk, "Unity in Essentials, Liberty in Doubtful Matters, and in All Things Charity." Since it was delivered to catechists of the archdiocese and dioceses throughout California, Gaillardetz's address, perhaps, may give one a glimpse of what the faithful are learning in RCIA and CCD regarding the Church's teaching authority.

Gaillardetz began his talk addressing "divisiveness" in the Catholic Church today. While admitting that a certain "polarization" exists in the Church, particularly in the United States, Gaillardetz tipped his hat to an observation made by sociologist priest Andrew Greeley "that the American church is indeed not polarized, that the extremes are represented on both ends by a very very small percentage of Catholics." Gaillardetz noted that this was perhaps counter-intuitive to Catholics at the poles of doctrinal and disciplinarian dispute; nevertheless, he said, "our Church is not altogether polarized if one looks at the people in the pews." It is among the "elites" — clergy, professional lay ministers, theologians, noted Catholic intellectuals, "leaders in the community" — that polarization and divisiveness prevail.

The cause of polarization in the Church is twofold, according to the Toledo professor. The new post-modern situation — "that we live in a world, sometimes side by side, with people whose thought world is radically different from our own" — is one cause. This "stimulus ... heightens our need to find for ourselves a secure identity, a sense of who I am against all this dizzying difference in the world." Among many Catholics, particularly those in their '20s and '30s, "there is a growing interest in reclaiming Catholic identity." This interest realizes itself in a return, for example, to "what we consider pre-conciliar Catholic devotional life," a phenomenon Gaillardetz sometimes thinks is "problematic," but other times doesn't think "a problem at all." In fact, he said, "the concern for identity is wholly appropriate. I think there is a real need to help people develop what I call a thick account, a description, of what it is to be Catholic. I'm also interested, however, in the possibility of our developing a rich sense of our Catholic identity while at the same time avoiding triumphalism" — the conviction that Catholics are "intrinsically better and have a better grasp of truth and reality than everybody else in the world." For Gaillardetz, it seems, triumphalism is at the root of ecclesial polarization.

Though the majority of Catholics in the pews are unaffected by polarizing tensions, these tensions are "ultimately going to have a deleterious impact on the whole body politic." The answer for Gaillardetz lies in a "particularly constructive" maxim, found in Pope John XXIII's encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram, and in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes (and, though the professor didn't note it, in St. Augustine of Hippo, a polarizing fellow if ever there was one — just ask Pelagius.) The maxim reads, "unity in what is essential, liberty in matters of doubt, and in all things charity." But not satisfied with this maxim, Gaillardetz suggested a further variant: "unity in what is essential, liberty in what is not essential, and in all things charity." The differences in the middle clause, Gaillardetz said, are "subtle but interesting."

Indeed they are, for the key to the professor's resolution of the problem of polarization consists in realizing that precious little in the Church is essential; that the imposing structure of Church teaching actually imposes hardly anything at all on the Catholic conscience. For Gaillardetz, humble acquiescence to magisterial authority does not characterize the Church; rather, it is being "a community of holy conversation," which "means that we have the courage to listen to others in confidence that through prayerful listening God's Spirit speaks, sometimes gradually, sometimes only in fits and starts. Sometimes we have to live with the lack of agreement and come to terms with what that means."

Gaillardetz argued his position by beginning with a basic truth. "Our Church itself in its wisdom," he said, "has recognized that while we propose many things for belief, they do not all have the same authoritative status." Gaillardetz then proceeded to lay out "a fairly sophisticated set of distinctions in Church teaching and pronouncements," which fall under four categories (which, Gaillardetz noted in passing, he develops more fully in his book, By What Authority.)

The first and "central category is dogma," Gaillardetz said, which, he explained, "is the fancy word we give to those teachings which we believe mediate God's saving offer. And we think they're pretty important, and we think that while people, being human, will struggle with one or another at some point in their lives ... if someone publicly, consistently renounces a dogma of the Faith, we believe that does not take them outside of God's saving love necessarily, but it does place them outside the Church...." Most of these dogmas are found, he said, in the Nicene Creed, "but some of the others have to do with sacramental life and practice...."

The second category, which Gaillardetz called the "most controversial of the four," is definitive doctrine. Such doctrines, he said, "are things that are also taught infallibly, but they are not divinely revealed. But they are teachings necessary to safeguard and defend divine revelation." Among such doctrines, Gaillardetz mentioned the Council of Trent's definition of the canon of Scripture. Gaillardetz did not mention that such teachings demand from the faithful, in the words of the Second Vatican Council, a "loyal and obedient assent of faith" and must be held "definitively and absolutely." But his hesitance, if such it were, arose perhaps from the fact that, as he said, "a lot of theologians like myself are working through a lot of questions about it."

The third category of teaching Gaillardetz called "authoritative doctrine." "These are teachings," he said, "that are not divinely revealed but that the Church draws from its reflection on divine revelation, by its prayer and study in attempt to apply the wisdom and insight of divine revelation to particular questions." Though these teachings are not divinely revealed, Catholics, said Gaillardetz, should give them "the presumption of truth" — much like the presumption one accords a doctor's diagnoses. But there may be situations where "a Catholic cannot give internal assent to such teachings, and if they made a good faith effort to do so, and still can't give an internal assent, they do not place themselves outside the Roman Catholic communion in that situation." The fourth category involves disciplinary decrees, such as priestly celibacy in the Latin rite and liturgical legislation. "Many people in Church right now are chafing over some recent changes in some liturgical legislation," Gaillardetz observed.

For Gaillardetz, the only category absolutely binding on Catholics is the first — that of dogma. The second, comprising infallible teaching, is for him binding in a way; but, as he indicated, theologians are still working through what it means. At least, Gaillardetz failed to mention that it was binding. Further, in regards to Trent's definition of the canon of Scripture, Gaillardetz merely said, "we tend to think that if they had gotten it wrong, our faith would be in jeopardy." He did not say that, given the Church's charism, Trent couldn't have gotten it wrong. Still, though Gaillardetz did distinguish the second category from the third; nowhere did he say that, after serious reflection, a Catholic might dissent from infallible teaching.

In discussing the importance of the four categories for the Church, Gaillardetz waxed vague. He seemed to resolve the magisterium, theologians, and all the faithful into equal interlocutors in a conversation. The Church is "not democracy," he admitted; but "it's also not a monarchy, it's not an oligarchy. It's, last I checked, a spiritual communion in which all the people of God, the magisterium and all the baptized, are supposed to submit their will to God's word and the guidance of the spirit." All are to listen to one another. To bolster this claim, Gaillardetz used the rather inapt example of the council of Jerusalem, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where the apostles and James, bishop of Jerusalem (the magisterial hierarchy), rendered their decision that Gentile converts need not follow the Mosaic ceremonial law. The council, said Gaillardetz, "recognized that their decision ultimately was a decision grounded not in personal preference, not in majoritarian rule, but in the guidance of the Spirit. It's a willingness to have faith in holy conversation."

Holy conversation is also, said Gaillardetz, "a willingness to listen to another character of the Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel, who speaks to the Sanhedrin which was deciding what to do with some of the apostles who were imprisoned and whether to allow them to continue to preach. And Gamaliel said, 'allow them to speak, because if they speak falsity, it'll die out; but if they speak truth, there's nothing we can do to stop it.' Let us pray together for a Church that becomes capable of genuinely holy conversation."

The evocation of Gamaliel seemed directed at the hierarchy of the Church, which, according to Gaillardetz, needs to listen to the faithful just as the faithful must listen to it. This became clearer in the question and answer session following Gaillardetz's talk, where he delivered an eccentric view on the sensus fidei of the whole People of God. The Second Vatican Council taught that "the whole body of the faithful ... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic," the Council continued, "is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals." Gaillardetz interprets this to mean that, in order for a teaching to be considered true and irreformable, it must not simply be taught infallibly by the magisterium but be received by the faithful.

"Our Church believes," said Gaillardetz, "that ultimately the teaching has to be received by the People of God. Why is that? It's not as if it's not binding until it is received, we're not saying that. What the Catholic Church believes is that the same spirit that works through our leaders, the bishops and the bishop of Rome, is the same spirit that gives each of us by virtue of baptism what we call the sensus fidei. The supernatural instinct for the faith. They are not two different spirits, so the same spirit who works through our teachers works through the People of God. Therefore, the Second Vatican Council said ... that when the whole people of God are in agreement on a matter of belief, we cannot err.... So reception ultimately is important because, if the teaching is valid, since it proceeds from the Spirit, since the Spirit works through the whole People of God, eventually it will be received."

An example for Gaillardetz of a teaching that has not been received is the Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception. He said: "one of the things I often say — I want you to hear how I articulate this — it is to me empirically undeniable that the teaching in Humanæ Vitæ [Pope Paul VI's encyclical on birth control] has not been received.

"Now let me finish.

"First, I am not saying that it is not authoritative. It remains authoritative. It has not been received; I don't think there's a doubt about that. Why has it not been received? A caution to liberals and conservatives alike. We don't yet know. We believe we know depending on our views on this, but there are two options. Option one, like the teaching of Nicaea and Athanasius in the fourth century, it is prophetic, and therefore it will take time before it overcomes cultural, sinful, resistance and is gradually received. That is an option that liberals need to entertain. Option two: it will not be received in the future because it's not prophetic; it's mistaken, at least in part."

But, for Gaillardetz, reception is necessary even for dogma — those teachings he placed under his first category. "May I suggest to you," he said, "that when the Council of Nicaea issued its teaching [that the Son is of the same essence with the Father], perhaps a majority of Christians would not have received it in the early fourth century. It took 50 to 80 years before that teaching was received in the whole Church." Thus, for Christians living at the time of Nicaea, the dogma of Christ being "of one essence with the Father" was up for "conversation." Presumably, too, the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon that Christ is true God and true man should still be up for conversation, since the Copts and other Monophysite Christians have never "received" it. And what of Trent's teaching on grace and works (which Protestants reject), and Vatican I's teaching on papal infallibility (which Old Catholics and Orthodox deny)? These too it seems should be up for conversation, not matters of definitive adherence.

Oddly enough, Gaillardetz cited Vatican II throughout his talk as an authority, though in the case of reception he contradicted the words of the council. For instance, in speaking of the sensus fidei, the council says "the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the Word of God (cf. I Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3)." Thus, the sensus fidei works in the People of God insofar as they are guided by the magisterium. And in addressing the infallibility of the pope, the council says, "his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal."

But, for Gaillardetz, such statements are perhaps on the face of them not authoritative, since they have not been fully received — at least by him and other theologians, and, perhaps also, not by the Los Angeles archdiocese's department of religious education.

SIDEBAR: LUTHER WOULD BE PROUD

When the priest indicated that he had attended seminary in that neolithic, pre-conciliar time, Gaillardetz observed that the two sources "theory" was so alluring at the time of Vatican II that the council fathers named the first draft of the constitution on revelation after it. But "they changed it," the theologian observed, "because it was anti-ecumenical. It was exactly what Luther accused us of."

A sobering consideration. But, thankfully, said Gaillardetz, the council explained itself, teaching "there is one font [of revelation], and that's the Word of God, which is communicated in two different ways. It's a very important point that for reasons I can't get into right now, that we don't add to Scripture." But if we don't add to Scripture, what is the role of Tradition? "We believe that Tradition is the prayerful, communal re-reading of Scripture in the life of the Church from generation to generation," Gaillardetz explained. "If you are a Catholic, you can't read Scripture apart from the ongoing life of the Church. Because Scripture is the Church's book... and we believe it needs to be read within the Church, within its ongoing Tradition, and within the context of its liturgy, and so on...."

Ultimately, it seems for Gaillardetz, it is instructive to read Scripture within "the ongoing history of the Church" because "you discover that it's been read and applied in a quite diverse number of ways." And where there is diversity, there is doubt, and where there is doubt, there is liberty. And, where there is liberty, there is conversation.

But did the council actually say what Gaillardetz claimed it said? Did it reject the two sources "theory"? Dei Verbum, the council's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," does speak of the Word of God (Christ Himself) as being the source or font of two forms of revelation: Tradition and Scripture. However, this is nothing new. Vatican I (held 1869-70) in its "Constitution on the Catholic Faith" speaks of all things believed by a divine and catholic faith, which "are contained in the word of God written or handed down" (in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur.) But does Vatican II say, "we don't add to Scripture" — as if (presumably) all things necessary for belief are contained therein?

No. Nor does it say that Tradition is merely "the prayerful, communal re-reading of Scripture in the life of the Church from generation to generation," as if Tradition simply serves to elucidate Holy Writ. Rather, Tradition, according to Dei Verbum, "transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit." And while it is true, according to Dei Verbum, that "sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others," Tradition serves a complementary and equal role in relation to Scripture rather than a subservient one. "Thus it comes about," said Dei Verbum, "that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence."

And certainly, Tradition elucidates far more than simply the diversity of scriptural interpretations. "By adhering" to the "sacred deposit of the Word of God" (made up of sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture), said the council, "the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." In other words, Tradition and Scripture lead one to the truth that saves, not the diversity that confounds.

TOP