EDITORIAL Questioning is not unholy or disloyal act
Even before members of the Catholic Theological Society of America
convened last month, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was taking pot shots
at the very idea that professional theologians might consider whether the
church has the authority to claim that women can never be ordained.
Chaput's comments, printed in the Denver archdiocese's newspaper
(NCR, July 4), were quickly followed by three other prelates writing
similar critiques in their papers -- Bishops John Meyers of Peoria, Ill., James
T. McHugh of Camden, N.J., and Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston.
Their reactions were valuable on several counts, not the least as
an example of the kind of open exchange that several of the bishops would no
doubt like to see silenced when it comes to matters of theological inquiry.
They were valuable also for dramatizing the dimensions of the
breach between some of the bishops on the right and the church's theologians
and for raising serious questions about the functions and responsibilities of
theologians vis-à-vis the Vatican and papal authority.
The Theological Society will certainly want to respond to Law's
harsh characterization of the organization, his impugning of the group's
motives and scholarship and his jarring disdain for the credentials of some
members. Under the headline "A theological wasteland," Law wrote, "What a pity
that those who have a stranglehold on the CTSA are so turned in on themselves.
The academic theological community has become victim to the various politically
correct currents of academe. A significant number of those claiming the
credential of Catholic theologian has not received a graduate education from
Catholic institutions. Often lacking an adequate grasp of Catholic thought,
they more easily fall into the prevailing intellectual culture of the secular
university. It becomes difficult if not impossible for them to evangelize the
culture which has formed and which sustains them."
Why all the vitriol directed at theologians?
Some vitriol is simply de rigueur these days among certain
segments of the church. The signals from the top are clear -- nothing that can
be construed as dissent is to be tolerated; every utterance now out of Rome is
given a theological weight once reserved for only the most central tenets of
faith. Railing against theologians who ask discomfiting questions can thus be a
smart career move in some instances.
The bishops have raised some important issues, particularly about
the role of theologians, that beg much deeper discussion. But the overriding
tone of the criticisms was narrow and punitive and had little to do with
engaging the question taken up by the theologians.
The church has lived through this kind of overriding
authoritarianism and fear of questioners before and it will survive the current
bout. Papacies change. Attitudes and approaches at the top change. Theologians
who are anathema one day are declared saints and fathers of the church another
day; ideas that are considered heretical in one generation are embraced as
central to the church's life in another era.
Absolutists of different periods have espoused obscurantist views
that permitted a justification of slavery, a prohibition against usury,
slaughter of the "infidels," persecution of Galileo, condemnation of
evolutionary theory and embrace of theologies that viewed women as flawed
creations, to name a few.
Institutions and the people who run them, even those in the
church, do err. When will we recognize that?
In the meantime, we hope the debate continues, but with certain
considerations. First, remember our history and the numbers of people and
organizations that have been hurt before they have been rehabilitated because
Roman bureaucrats refused to go beyond rigidly applied laws. Remember that some
bishops in our own time have raised very pointed questions about papal
authority and how it is used. Questioning is not necessarily -- or usually --
an unholy or disloyal act.
We hope that bishops and others opposed to theological questioning
desist from slamming theologians for simply doing their work and that they
cease belittling credentials and impugning motives.
We also hope those opposed to such theological speculation resist
using "the faithful" as a reason for their concern. Worrying -- as did several
of the bishops who spoke out against the Theological Society -- that "the
faithful" will become hopelessly confused by a little theological wrangling is
an outdated and patronizing bit of piffle.
Be assured that we in the pews might be confused at times about
why the church resists married priests and ordination of women; we might be
puzzled by the way church authorities continue to mishandle the relentless sex
abuse scandal; we might be mystified by the church's insistence on an
artificial birth control ban even as other "natural" family planning methods
are touted; and we might be amazed and angered at the resistance to inclusive
language.
We might be confused by a lot, but we won't be confused or
troubled by theologians taking on difficult questions. That is what they are
supposed to do.
We also know that bishops and cardinals disagree over the very
things that divide some of the laity. We find that heartwarmingly human, not
scandalous.
Let the discussions continue, with the hope that we all can resist
the urge to condemn and excommunicate.
National Catholic Reporter, July 18,
1997
|