In the previous post we discussed the nature and the need for third category magisterial teachings, and also the faithful's appropriate response to it.
There are only three possible responses from a faithful Catholic to any authoritative Church document.
If it promulgates law, then we must be obedient.
If it teaches infallible dogma, then we must have theological faith.
If it teaches non-infallibly but authoritatively, then we must respond with obsequium religiosum.
In this post we will not be addressing obedience to law, or faith in dogma, but only obsequium religiosum to non-infallible authoritative teaching, and the opposite sin which is dissent.
Recall that obsequium is not based on the certitude of the teachings, but is based on the authority that the magisterium has been given by Christ as well as the aid magisterium is given in its teaching task by the Holy Spirit.
How do we recognize authoritative magisterial teaching?
Teachings are magisterial due to the right matter and form. The content must regard faith and morals, and the intention of the bishop to teach authoritatively must be manifest. There is also the need for the appropriate subject - a bishop united to the Pope (or the Pope himself.) (See my post on these criteria of magisterial teaching.)
In these days of mass media, opinions of the Pope are frequently quoted, and so it is important to distinguish his authoritative magisterial teaching from these opinions. Authoritative magisterial teachings always have the character of official teaching, which does not include interviews or personal writings or theological treatises. Notwithstanding the fact that we must be respectful and charitable to our bishops in all things, a Pope's personal opinion, even on matters of faith and morals, does not require from us obsequium religiosum, as his authoritative 'official' teaching does.
Is obsequium to authoritative teaching the same in all cases?
Even official teaching, while requiring obsequium from the faithful simply due to its authoritativeness, does not always require the same degree of adherence. Consider by analogy that our submission to professional counsel is based not only on the authority of that professional in his field, but also on the tenor of that counsel. If a doctor gives us general advice to exercise, for example, we take that less seriously than if he strictly charges us to do particular exercises to strengthen certain muscles. The case is similar with third category teachings. The degree of our obsequium religiosum is “differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested” [Lumen Gentium, 25] by the one teaching.
The tenor of the teaching is judged by the following:
"The character of the documents," e.g. a letter to the whole Church, vs an allocution to particular group,
"frequent repetition of the same doctrine," versus for example referring to it once in the context of another topic, and
"manner of speaking," e.g. in a solemn tone, versus speaking in a colloquial tone.
Our response is further nuanced according to other circumstances, such as whether the magisterium has closed the door to dialogue on this topic.
Does obsequium religiosum allow disagreement with magisterium?
Obsequium religiosum does not prevent the theologian from having his own thoughts and opinions, and on the contrary requires the theologian to express these opinions as part of the process of the development of doctrine. Theologians are bound first to make an effort at reconciling Church documents with prior Church documents. When this effort fails, loyal dialogue is praiseworthy as a stimulus to the magisterium to present truths more clearly. The theologian is obliged to object in an appropriate manner:
However, not all objections are justifiable. Objections to third category teachings must not be based simply on lack of evidence or probability, nor on the theologian's conscience. [DV 28] Theologians must have the humility to realize that their objections are not infallible any more than the third category teachings they object to. Realizing that their opinions are also subject to error, they should present them as such, rather than as "non-arguable conclusions."
Even if true, these opinions may cause scandal, i.e. turn the weak-minded from the faith, if aired at an inappropriate time. [DV 27] As St. Thomas says, the sharing of the truth may be "omitted or deferred" in order to avoid scandal. [ST II-II, 43, 4, ad 4] In order for their contribution to be beneficial in the development of doctrine, theologians must be willing to present a disinterested, well-reasoned case for their objections. They must also use the appropriate forum for dialogue - not mass media for the exertion of pressure. [DV 30]
When do objections become dissent?
When reverence is lost, respectful dialogue degenerates into dissent, which is the sin contrary to obsequium religiosum.
The response of obsequium means refraining from irreverently, obstinately, or publicly professing an opinion contrary to what the magisterium teaches and from attacking the Pope, or the bishops united to the Pope, who teach it. Since obsequium is more of the will than the intellect, it is governed by charity. Dissent, on the other hand, is characterized by obstinate and disrespectful attacks against these teachers and their teaching. Dissent is one of the sins against unity that is contrary to charity, and is a prelude to schism. "A house divided against itself will not stand." (See my article on schism.)
The most radical form of dissent follows “a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society” [DV 33.], wherein the mass media is engaged to promote widespread defiance. Such a contemptuous response to magisterial teaching would be abhorrent to a faithful Catholic.
We see a different form of dissent which is becoming more common in the denial that the obligation exists to adhere to those magisterial teachings that do not bear the stamp of infallibility. It promotes the belief that Church magisterium cannot teach authoritatively on matters which are not infallibly defined, and that submission is 'blind obedience' or ultramontism, which shirks one's own responsibility toward the truth. It is tantamount to a denial that obsequium religiosum is an act of virtue. This second form of dissent is perhaps the more insidious because it undermines reverence of faithful Catholics to magisterium.
Against this ignorance about obsequium are the teachings of Lumen Gentium and Donum Veritatis, along with tradition that has born out this same truth in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and spiritual theology. (See my post on St. Ignatius' ideas about reverence to the Church hierarchical.)
In Fine...
There is a limit even to the respectful expression of objections to magisterial teachings, and loyalty requires obsequium when difficulties remain.
Rather than contributing to the problem, theologians can be part of the solution by carefully and faithfully explaining to the faithful the truth in ambiguous documents, while making the effort to show them how to reconcile what may appear as novel teachings with traditional teaching. They can pinpoint precisely the propositions wherein the confusion lies, and explain how not to understand those propositions such as would contradict traditional teaching, as well as in what way the faithful can safely understand them as true.
Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question. For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church…it can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. [DV 3]
At some point a theologian may find it impossible to assent to a magisterial teaching. This may be simply due to his own inability to read an ambiguous document in the light of other clearer teachings. But it may be because the teaching errs. When this happens, the theologian must put the problem in God's hands while continuing to search for a solution to the difficulty.
Saints have at times been made to suffer in silence by the institutional church. This suffering need not be in vain, but can gain merit for the Church and ultimately lead to the triumph of truth. Our trust is not in the institution insofar as it is human, but in Christ who established the Church and enlivens it by the Holy Spirit. It is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we can have confidence that the truth obscured in the moment will eventually become clear. The Holy Spirit knows what He is about. All we need do is cooperate with His movements by our virtuous choices, which includes our obsequiam religiosum.
Comments