We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 March 2013
Archbishop Bernardin recommended that, in the relationship between magisterium and theologians, two extremes are to be avoided. On the one hand, there should be no imperialism on the part of the magisterium, co-opting theologians merely as mouthpieces for magisterial teachings. On the part of theologians, on the other hand, there should be no secession from the magisterium that would give theologians absolute autonomy and freedom from accountability. This essay analyzes the diverse charisms of magisterium and theologians and argues that they are complementary and that both parties should relate in the dialogue of charity recommended for ecumenical discussions in Pope John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint. This dialogue of charity, the essay further argues, should not be restricted to only magisterium and theologians but should embrace also, for upbuilding the Church, the entire People of God journeying together to the Holy Mystery.
1 In this essay, the term “the magisterium” with the definite article refers to both hierarchical of ficeholders and their teaching function in the Catholic Church.
2 Bernardin, Joseph, “Magisterium and Theologians: Steps towards Dialogue,” Chicago Studies 17/2 (1978): 151–58, at 158.Google Scholar
3 Paul, Pope John II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (April 25, 1995), http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/_INDEX.HTMGoogle Scholar (accessed March 7, 2009), arts. 17, 51, and 60.
4 Paul, Pope VI, Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.htmlGoogle Scholar (accessed March 7, 2009), esp. art. 3.
5 Rahner, Karl, “The Teaching Office of the Church in the Present-Day Crisis of Authority,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 12: Confrontations 2, trans. Bourke, David (New York: Crossroad, 1974), 3–30, at 3.Google Scholar
6 Laurentin, René, “Charisms: Terminological Precision,” in Duquoc, Christian and Floristan, Casiano, eds., Charisms in the Church, Concilium, vol. 109 (New York: Crossroad, 1978), 3–12, at 8.Google Scholar
7 Haughey, John C., “Charismata: An Ecclesiological Exploration,” in Donnelly, Doris, ed., Retrieving Charismata for the Twenty-First Century (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 1–16, at 10.Google Scholar
8 Congar, Yves, “Theologians and the Magisterium in the West: From the Gregorian Reform to the Council of Trent,” Chicago Studies 17/2 (1978): 210–24, at 223.Google Scholar
9 Place, Michael D., “From Solicitude to Magisterium: Theologians and the Magisterium from the Council of Trent to the First Vatican Council,” Chicago Studies 17/2 (1978): 225–41, at 226.Google Scholar
10 Rahner, Karl, “Observations on the Factor of the Charismatic in the Church,” in Theological Investigations, vol. XII (New York: Crossroad, 1974), 81–97, at 81.Google Scholar
11 Denzinger, Heinrich and Schönmetzer, Adolf, eds., Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 33rd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1965), DS 3886.Google Scholar
12 Rahner, , “Observations,” 85.Google Scholar
13 Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), The documents of Vatican II, ed. Abbott, Walter M. (New York: America Press, 1966).Google Scholar
14 Ibid., 12. (emphasis added).
15 Sullivan, Francis A., Charisms and Charismatic Renewal: A Biblical and Theological Study (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982), 13.Google Scholar
16 Dulles, Avery, “The Two Magisteria: An Interim Reflection,” in Salm, Luke, ed., Catholic Theological Society of America [CTSA]: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention (Washington, DC: Catholic Theological Society of America, 1981), 155–69, at 155.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., 165.
18 Rahner, , “Observations,” 85.Google Scholar
19 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990)Google Scholar. Hereafter Instruction.
20 Instruction, art. 1.
21 See Boyle, John P., Church Teaching Authority: Historical and Theological Studies (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 142–160Google Scholar; Sullivan, Francis A., Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1996), 15–27.Google Scholar
22 Instruction, art. 40.
23 Ibid., art. 6.
24 Ibid., art. 7.
25 Ibid., art. 9.
26 Ibid., art. 11.
27 Ibid., art. 13.
28 Lumen Gentium, art. 12.
29 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaratio circa catholicam doctrinam de Ecclesia contra nonnullos errores hodiernos tuendam (Mysterium ecclesiae) (June 24, 1973), art. 2.Google Scholar
30 Instruction, arts. 15, 16, 17, 23, and 33.
31 Ibid., art. 16.
32 Ibid., art. 17.
33 Ibid., art. 20.
34 Ibid., art. 21.
35 Ibid., art. 26.
36 Ibid., art. 32. See Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), art. 10.Google Scholar
37 Instruction, art. 37.
38 Ibid., art. 40.
39 Ibid., art. 37.
40 Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3073–74.
41 Instruction, art. 40
42 Christifideles Laici, art. 33. (emphasis added).
43 Instruction, art. 7.
44 Congar, Yves, “A Brief History of the Forms of the Magisterium and Its Relations with Scholars,” in Curran, Charles E. and McCormick, Richard A., eds., The Magisterium and Morality: Readings in Moral Theology No. 3 (New York: Paulist, 1982), 314–31, at 314–15.Google Scholar
45 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1994), art. 5; see also United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord (Washington, DC: Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005), art. 43.Google Scholar
46 Sullivan, Francis A., Magisterium (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1983), 193.Google Scholar
47 Instruction, art. 22.
48 Catholic Theological Society of America, “Church Procedures and Authority,” Origins 20/29 (December 27, 1990): 461, 463–67, at 464, art. 21.Google Scholar
49 McCormick, Richard. A., “Some Early Reactions to Veritatis Splendor,” in Curran, Charles and McCormick, Richard A., eds., John Paul II and Moral Theology: Readings in Moral Theology No. 10 (New York: Paulist, 1998), 5–34, at 9–10.Google Scholar
50 Ibid., 10. See also, Salzman, Todd, Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 307.Google Scholar
51 Paul, Pope John II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993)Google Scholar, Origins 23/18 (October 14, 1993): 297–334, art. 4.
52 Others have made this same point. See Sullivan, Francis A., “The Sense of Faith: The Sense/Consensus of the Faithful,” in Hoose, Bernard, ed., Authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Theory and Practice (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 85–93, at 90Google Scholar; Lakeland, Paul, The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (New York: Continuum, 2003), 67, 205–07Google Scholar; Hinze, Bradford, Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church: Aims and Obstacles, Lessons and Laments (New York: Continuum, 2006), 247.Google Scholar
53 See, for instance, Lumen Gentium, art. 37; and Gaudium et Spes, arts. 13, 21, 33, 37, 44, 46, and 52.
54 See Veritatis Splendor, arts. 53, 86, and 98; Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (March 4, 1979), http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0218/_INDEX.HTM (accessed March 7, 2009), art 17; Exhortation, ApostolicFamiliaris Consortio (November 22, 1981), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.htmlGoogle Scholar (accessed March 7, 2009), arts. 32 and 73.
55 This term is borrowed from Rieger, Jorg, Remember the Poor: The Challenge to Theology in the Twenty-First Century (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 1–5.Google Scholar Rieger uses it to dramatize the situation of the poor and oppressed. The term is given greater import in Gustavo Guttierez' description of Jesus as “God become poor” (The Power of the Poor in History [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983], 13).
56 Rigali, Norbert S.J., “The Ecclesial Responsibilities of Theologians, Forty Years after Vatican II,” Horizons 33 (2006), 298–302, at 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57 Ibid.
58 Haight, Roger, Jesus, Symbol of God (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999).Google Scholar
59 “Statement of the Board of Directors, The Catholic Theological Society of America, With Respect to the Notification Issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Concerning the book, Jesus: Symbol of God, by Rev. Haight, Roger S.J., and Haight, Prohibiting Fr. from Teaching Catholic Theology.” http://www.ctsa-online.org/haight.html (accessed February 7, 2009).Google Scholar
60 Rigali, , “Ecclesial Responsibilities,” 301.Google Scholar
61 Ibid., 302.
62 Lumen Gentium, arts. 10–13.
63 This is an apt point to recall Cardinal Newman's judgment about the laity during the Arian controversy, published in his famous essay “On Consulting the Faithful.” He judged that it was not the bishops who saved the church from Arianism, for “the body of bishops failed in their confession of faith,” but the laity who were “preeminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.” It was “mainly by the faithful people,” judged Newman, “that paganism was overthrown.” See Newman, John Henry, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, Coulson, John, ed. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 10.Google Scholar
64 Lakeland, Paul, Catholicism at the Crossroads: How the Laity Can Save the Church (New York: Continuum, 2007), 99.Google Scholar
65 Lumen Gentium, art. 12.
66 Instruction, art. 26.
67 Ibid., art. 15.
68 Ibid.
69 Sullivan, , Magisterium, 192Google Scholar; “The Sense of the Faith,” 90.
70 Bernardin, , “Magisterium and Theologians,” 153.Google Scholar
71 See CTSA, , “Church Procedures,” arts. 14–18.Google Scholar
72 Lash, Nicholas, “Authors, Authority and Authorization,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church, 59–72Google Scholar, at 59 (emphasis added).
73 Congar, Yves, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” in Alberigo, Giuseppe and Weiler, A., eds., Election and Consensus in the Church, Concilium, vol. 77 (Freiburg: Herder and Herder, 1972), 43–68, at 62.Google Scholar
74 Burghardt, Walter, Long Have I Loved You: A Theologian Reflects on his Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 332.Google Scholar
75 At this point, we are tempted to pause to consider the contribution of the entire body of the faithful to doctrinal formulations in the contemporary recovery of the theological notions of reception and sensus fidei, but space does not permit such a pause. Readers who wish information on that matter may consult Sullivan, , “The Sense of Faith,” 85–93Google Scholar; Gaillardetz, Richard R., “The Reception of Doctrine: New Perspectives,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church, 95–114Google Scholar; Lawler, Michael G., What Is and What Ought to Be: The Dialectic of Experience, Theology, and Church (New York: Continuum, 2005), 119–142.Google Scholar
76 CTSA, , “Church Procedures,” art. 16.Google Scholar
77 Ibid., art. 13.
78 Ibid., art. 22.
79 Instruction, art. 37.
80 Ibid.
81 See Ut Unum Sint, arts. 17, 51, and 60.
82 Ibid., art. 31.
83 Ibid., art. 28.
84 Ibid., art. 29 (emphasis in original).
85 Gaudium et Spes, art. 92.
86 Ibid., art. 36.
87 Pope Benedict XVI's lifting of the excommunications of the Lefebvrite bishops is a recent example of this. See, for example, Allen, John L., “Vatican Lifts Excommunication,” in National Catholic Reporter, February 6, 2009, 1.Google Scholar
88 See extensive examples and modes of dialogue exercised in and by the Catholic Church in Hinze, Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church, passim.
89 Instruction, art. 37.
90 Bernardin, , “Magisterium and Theologians,” 158.Google Scholar
91 Instruction, art. 21.
92 Paul, Pope John II, “How Authority is Conceived,” Origins 25/34 (February 15, 1996): 572–74, art. 3.Google Scholar
93 See Noonan, John T., A Church that Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).Google Scholar
94 See Örsy, Ladislas, The Church Learning and Teaching: Magisterium, Assent, Dissent, Academic Freedom (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991).Google Scholar
95 Cantor, Peter, Verbum abbreviatum, 1 ( Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina [= PL], ed. Migne, J.-P. [Paris: 1844–1891], 205:25Google Scholar; emphasis added).
96 Secretariat, Vatican Synod, “The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World,” Origins 31/5 (June 14, 2001): 65, 67–104, art. 105.Google Scholar
97 Newman, John Henry, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1906), 1:xlvii.Google Scholar
98 Sullivan, , “The Sense of the Faith,” 90.Google Scholar
99 Lawler, Michael G. and Shanahan, Thomas J., Church: A Spirited Communion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 67.Google Scholar
100 See Robinson, Geoffrey, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008).Google Scholar
101 The election of bishops in the early church by local clerics and laity is beyond doubt. See, for example, Lawrence, Hugh, “Spiritual Authority and Governance: A Historical Perspective,” in Authority in the Roman Catholic Church, 37–57, at 38–39Google Scholar; Pope Celestine decreed that “no bishop is to be imposed on people who do not want him” (Epist. 45, PL 50:434); Pope Leo the Great is equally emphatic: “He who is to preside over all must be chosen by all. There is required the vote of the clergy, the testimony of honored witnesses, the consent of order and of the people” (Ad Anas., PL 54:634); Cyprian declared, contrary to Pope Stephen, that this is of divine origin (Epist. LXVII, 4, Saint Cyprien: Correspondence, ed. Bayard, Louis (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1925), 229–30.Google Scholar See Granfield, Patrick, “Episcopal Election in Cyprian: Clerical and Lay Participation,” in Theological Studies 37 (1976): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102 Himes, Michael, “Introduction,” in Drey, J. S., Brief Introduction to the Study of Theology: With Reference to the Scientific Standpoint and the Catholic System (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), ix–xxx, at xxvi.Google Scholar We are indebted to our colleague, Richard Miller, for bringing this text to our attention.
103 Ibid., xxv.
104 See Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. Dych, William V. (New York: Seabury, 1978), 65–71.Google Scholar
105 Bonavoglia, Angela, Good Catholic Girls (New York: Reganbooks, 2005), 7.Google Scholar We are indebted to our colleague, Susan Calef, for bringing this concept to our attention.
106 Ut Unum Sint, art. 18, citing Dignitatis Humanae, art. 3.
107 International Theological Commission, Theses on the Relationship Between the Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1977), 7.Google Scholar
