|
Article Excerpt
THE TWO TYPES OF AUTHORITY that concern us here (authority to govern and ability to teach) are, of course, distinct and can be discussed separately. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, we find that they are often intermingled, and sometimes even confused with each other. Over the centuries governing power has often been used (and misused) to bolster teaching authority. Such an approach can easily amount to little more than "we are right because we are in charge" or "we give orders, not explanations." Nicholas Lash has commented on some thoughts of Walter Burghardt about the concept of authority that was in vogue in the Church as the latter grew up. In that conception, authority did not have to appeal to human intelligence. There was no need for it to prove, explain, or convince. People who held positions of authority made the decisions. Other members of the Church submitted to those decisions and executed the orders. Two features of this account are taken up by Lash. The first is that it collapses all authority into governance, and the second is that "proclamation construed as command" is substituted for teaching. Authority, he notes, is a much wider term than governance, and this is especially the case in a Christian context. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, authority, even teaching authority, is understood and exercised in terms of governance "to an alarming extent." This subordination of education to governance he sees as being at the heart of the crisis in contemporary Catholicism. (1)
Lash also speaks of "our common apprenticeship in holiness and understanding." Another writer who takes up a similar theme to that is Richard Gaillardetz, who highlights the insistence of the Second Vatican Council that the word of God has been given to the entire Christian community by the power of the Holy Spirit. Any understanding we may have of the structures and exercise of doctrinal teaching authority will be defective or distorted if it does not fully take this basic conviction into account. No matter how much Catholics may insist upon an apostolic ministry which has the responsibility of safeguarding the authentic proclamation of God's word, that word is not the privileged possession of a privileged few members of the Church. Moreover, the requirements of an ecclesiology of communion must govern both the exercise of doctrinal teaching authority and the authoritative structures. In that ecclesiology, the Church has a relational character, and no "autonomous loci of power and authority" are to be found within it. Gaillardetz accepts and affirms the need for a doctrinal teaching office. "But the nature and exercise of this doctrinal authority must be governed by the gospel of Jesus Christ and the conceptions of authority that flow from the life of ecclesial communion." (2)
Other scholars have highlighted the importance of adopting a theology or ecclesiology of communion. (3) Insights gained by proponents of such a theology can be of enormous assistance to us in the authentic development of both kinds of authority. Insights from beyond the world of theology, however, also have their importance--even in the Church. Indeed, we have learned so much about the exercise of power and authority in recent decades that it seems odd and perhaps irresponsible not to apply some of that knowledge and awareness to the Church. (4) That is clearly the case where governance is concerned. As Enda McDonagh puts it, "Fresh insight into and respect for the dignity of the human being with the accompanying recognition of certain inalienable human rights, including the right to participation in social governance, have yet to be realized properly and fully in our societies. Yet their development, however incomplete and even ambiguous, can be seen as indicia regni Dei, signs of the inbreaking reign of God. Should they not therefore play their due part in governance of the Church?" (5)
Numerous writers evidently think they should--dissatisfaction with the current church governance apparently playing no small role in their thought processes. This fact, together with the increasing interest in an ecclesiology of communion, seems to have given an impetus to debate about authority in the Church in recent years. After the publication of Veritatis splendor, theologians of a conservative bent might have hoped that, henceforth, there would be less controversy among theologians concerning that topic. In practice, however, much of the reaction to that encyclical was highly critical, (6) and, if anything, its publication may have only served to encourage controversy--much of it concerning the limits of magisterial authority. From a moral theologian's point of view, most of the major fruits of recent debate can be classified under three headings: "the moral magisterium," "the issue of dissent," and "authority, power and corruption." I shall discuss each of them in turn.
THE MORAL MAGISTERIUM
Gaillardetz has provided us with a useful review of Richard McCormick's contributions to our understanding of the moral magisterium. He notes that, in the latter's famous essay "How My Mind Has Changed," all the changes listed can be linked to a shift in ecclesiology, away from the pyramidal vision of the Church. Adopting a view of the Church as the People of God, with all the baptized having a role to play, McCormick saw the magisterium of the bishops having the essential task of authenticating, guarding, and proclaiming the faith. "Where the bishops teach beyond the ambit of divine revelation, they are given an assistance of the Spirit activated in the employment of the human processes at their disposal for drawing out and articulating the corporate wisdom of the church." In view of the fact that such teaching is provisional, members of the Church (and especially theologians) who are unable to assimilate them are, by virtue of their baptism, called "to bring their reservations into the respectful public conversation of the church." (7) In a not dissimilar vein, Charles Curran points to the teaching role of the whole Church. Once this is recognized, he says, the Church is seen to be a community of moral discourse in which there is a call for the public discussion of different positions. (8)
Not surprisingly, most contributors to debate within Catholicism accept that, within this community of moral discourse, teachings emanating from members of the hierarchy, especially the pope, have a special status that calls for a bias in the direction of assent. Some recent discussion, however, has centred on the limits within which this special status applies. Toward the end of a very long article in which he examines the contributions of various theologians to debate about the moral magisterium in recent decades, Alberto Bonandi opines that it is important not to overvalue the binomial nature of the expression fides et mores. It is similar in all respects to such other expressions as depositum fidei, revealed truth, or doctrina de fide christiana. Rather than a formula...
|
