Back in July, I published an article on “The Theologian’s Right and Duty to Remain Silent.” It basically lays out certain criteria regarding how a theologian should handle disagreement with a magisterial text. Now, however, I would like to complement what I wrote before by offering some clarifications. Some people might have gotten the false impression that every time the pope or a curial dicastery issues a statement or document, anything short of full-throated endorsement and praise—let alone criticism—is tantamount to dissent. That is simply not the case.
Rather, as the chief document I cited, Donum Veritatis, itself states: “The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions” (24). Later on, it speaks of cases in which, “despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented” (30, emphasis added).
While there are cases where a theologian has a duty to remain silent—at least with respect to mass media—there is also a duty to express one’s criticism of a magisterial text.
I cited that last quote in my original article, but the import might have been missed by some readers. While there are cases where a theologian has a duty to remain silent—at least with respect to mass media—there is also a duty to express one’s criticism of a magisterial text. Donum Veritatis even says that expressing one’s “objections could then contribute to real progress and provide stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments” (30).
Because the magisterium is the sole authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, that does not mean that every phrase or argument the magisterium employs is ideal and without flaw. The whole category of nondefinitive teaching leaves open the possibility that errors in argumentation, prudence, or even content of teaching can occur.
As Donum Veritatis itself relates, particularly with respect to prudential magisterial interventions, “it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question” (24). It is not a denial of proper magisterial authority simply to note that a particular magisterial intervention has certain deficiencies, especially—but not limited to—prudential matters.
While all Catholics—including theologians—should generally and habitually be disposed to submit to magisterial teaching, that does not mean that a competent theologian can never voice any negative criticism with respect to a magisterial statement. The document Donum Veritatis, as shown above, envisions a role for theologians in helping the magisterium come to a better explication of faith and morals precisely by expressing their thoughts about how a text’s presentation could be improved.
In his book The Nature and Mission of Theology, Joseph Ratzinger discusses Donum Veritatis directly and offers clarifying remarks. Regarding particular sections of the document, he explains:
Taken out of context, in fact, they can give rise to the impression that the Instruction allows the theologian the sole option of submitting divergent opinions to the magisterial authorities in secret and obliges him to suffer in silence if he is unsuccessful. Nevertheless, in light of the whole text, which speaks of the fruitful tensions and their value, it is quite obvious that the Instruction is not proposing “secret” communications but dialogue which remains on an ecclesiastical and scientific plane and avoids distortions at the hands of the mass media. . . . In actuality, the point is precisely to use arguments instead of pressure as means of persuasion. (117)
Ratzinger’s clarification is particularly noteworthy, given that Donum Veritatis was issued under his prefecture over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).
The magisterium benefits from sound, well-argued critiques and sometimes incorporates such criticisms in later explications of the same doctrine.
Notably, one way a theologian addresses difficulties he or she might have with a magisterial statement is by raising such difficulties within theological circles so that one might receive feedback. In other words, the theologian is not expected to always keep his difficulties to himself. Part of the process of undergoing “an intense and patient reflection” on the matter includes the willingness to “examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him” (Donum Veritatis 29). How could a theologian’s colleagues offer their objections to his own criticisms if the theologian does not express them to said colleagues?
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledges this as well. Back when it was called the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, it issued a document called The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop: A Pastoral Reflection (1992). Therein, it states:
The Church has in its long history attempted to preserve an arena for the discussions among theologians and for theological investigation that ranges freely over many subjects and even challenges through careful argument the teaching of the Church to achieve greater accuracy and depth. . . . Theological faculties, Catholic universities, professional societies, learned journals, books, and monographs have been the customary setting for such discussion (11).
After referencing Donum Veritatis regarding public dissent, it goes on to clarify what is meant by “public.” It says that “it does not seem appropriate to apply the term public to the professional discussions that occur among theologians within the confines of scholarly meetings and dialogues or to the scholarly publication of views. Such forums for the exchange of views among theologians are invaluable for the refinement of positions that comes through peer critique of evidence, methodology, and scholarship. They serve the advancement of truth itself” (18).
Even more pertinent, these words immediately follow: “Even if the views expressed in such forums are critical of or in disagreement with the ordinary, nondefinitive teaching of the magisterium, the magisterium itself may benefit from an understanding of objections to its teaching and from the refinement and development of authoritative teaching that may result from such scholarly exchanges” (18). To put it another way, the magisterium benefits from sound, well-argued critiques and sometimes incorporates such criticisms in later explications of the same doctrine. It is for this reason that fruitful dialogue between the magisterium and theologians is mentioned.
Additionally, I think it is important to distinguish types of criticism. One type involves a theologian criticizing long-standing, oft-repeated doctrine. Another type argues that a specific formulation in a particular document fails to comport with such prior teaching and/or provides insufficient reasons for reversing—in fact or only in appearance—the previous magisterial position.
The former is much more likely to be a form of problematic dissent than the latter. In the former case, the theologian is asserting that the Church has habitually taught erroneously about the same matter over an extended period of time. In the latter case, the theologian is arguing that the Church’s long-standing teaching ought to continue to be affirmed. The latter can be justified by virtue of the fact that frequency and level of teaching are part of the calculation needed to assess the relative weight of magisterial teachings (see Donum Veritatis 24).
Let me give an abstract example. Let’s say the ordinary magisterium has often strongly reiterated the same doctrine through high-level documents (e.g., apostolic constitutions and encyclicals). Later, a single instance of a contrary teaching is given in a lower-level document (e.g., a general papal audience or a letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued in common form). The latter is not de facto more authoritative merely because it is more recent.
In such a case, a theologian could publish an article in an academic journal or write a scholarly book arguing that the more recent exposition of the question is not sufficient to reverse the prior magisterial teaching. Such an exercise would not fall under the category of public dissent.
The purpose of offering legitimate criticism is not to undermine the faithful’s trust in magisterial authority but rather to help the magisterium more carefully and convincingly teach the faithful.
If a person asserts that a given theologian is a heretic, schismatic, or dissenter solely on the grounds that he or she offered well-articulated and carefully supported theological arguments in a scholarly setting explaining why a specific, nondefinitive magisterial teaching is flawed, then that first person is—ironically—contradicting the magisterium’s own express teaching on the matter.
Nevertheless, the magisterium remains the sole authoritative teacher on matters of faith and morals. Hence, “the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions” (Donum Veritatis 27).
Thus, even in cases where a theologian follows proper protocol in offering criticism, said theologian ought to be willing to submit to the magisterium’s judgment, should the magisterium intervene with respect to the work or reject his or her thesis. The purpose of offering legitimate criticism is not to undermine the faithful’s trust in magisterial authority but rather to help the magisterium more carefully and convincingly teach the faithful.