____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Ex Corde Ecclesiae Debate Continued
Editor’s note: In an Essay entitled “Averting a Collision,” in our May 1999 issue, Kenneth D. Whitehead pointed to signs of softening in the resistance offered by American Catholic educators against Vatican efforts to ensure the Catholic character of Church-related colleges and universities. In the course of that Essay, Whitehead carefully scrutinized the position of Father James Heft, SM, who was—and is—a leading figure in the discussion by virtue of his position as chairman of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
This summer, CWR received a lengthy letter from Father Heft, responding to Whitehead’s criticism. Coincidentally, the editorial mail also brought news from Kenneth Whitehead himself, who had detected new signs of movement among the leaders of America’s leading Catholic colleges and universities. In the interest of stimulating further discussion on an important issue—an issue which will command considerable attention at the American bishops’ meeting in November—CWR asked Whitehead to respond to Father Heft’s letter.
Correcting misinterpretations
Father James L. Heft, SM, writes:
I write in order to correct several misinterpretations that Kenneth D. Whitehead made of statements I made in an address last January on “Academic Freedom: American and Catholic,” at the University of Dayton, which was published in Origins of February 18, 1999. First a clarification: I gave the address, an annual event, at my own university in my capacity as the University Professor of Faith and Culture. Though I happen also this year to serve as Chair of the Board of Directors of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), it was neither in that capacity nor as spokesman for that organization that I gave the lecture. Whitehead sees in my address evidence that the ACCU leadership is finally coming to a more realistic response to the need for episcopal oversight, that I “have moved much closer to the standards of Ex Corde Ecclesiae (ECE) than some of [my] predecessors,” and that I “seem to have readily yielded on several points which the ACCU has strongly and even stubbornly held in the past.”
Whether and how the ACCU’s position has changed on these issues would require other evidence; this address represents long-held views of my own. Thirteen years ago (four years before ECE even appeared), I made essentially the same points about the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) notion of academic freedom, especially its dismissal of the authority of a religious tradition and its narrow view of what counts as real knowledge (to wit, only that which can be established by the scientific method and is subject only to peer review). What I was not then clearly aware of, and what I tried to make clearer in my address this year, is the critically important role that a more “communal” or “corporate” idea of academic freedom plays in preserving an institution’s distinctiveness. In this 1999 lecture, I was not expressing any official ACCU position; I was, rather, pursuing an area of research that has been of interest to me for some time.
Second, I am glad that Whitehead found several of my points about academic freedom and Catholic theology cogent and consistent with Catholic tradition. But toward the end of his article, he claims that in my brief discussion of the role of theologians I appear to “embrace the old, adamant opposition to the full implementation” of ECE—a stance that “would seem to exclude any true and honest relationship with the Catholic Church, at least as the Church understands and defines herself.” These are strong words, and serious charges—even when cushioned with “appears” and “seems”—and the charges are false.
Specifically, Whitehead accuses me of setting up theologians as an “alternate magisterium.” On the evidence of one clause, he deduces a position that “definitive magisterial judgments of the Church only seem to forbid further debate about settled questions, since academic theologians always have the right and duty to ‘evaluate’ critically these magisterial judgments,” which he further extrapolates into a supposed belief that theologians “are in no way required to accept the judgments of the magisterium on this or any other reading of the issue.” Therefore, in Whitehead’s view, I want theologians to “exercise an oversight function over the decisions of the Church’s magisterium.”
What did I actually write? The very first point I made in my address was that to be Catholic, theologians cannot oppose established Catholic dogma: “Now for theologians to be Catholic, they must theologize within the dogmatic tradition of the Church, not against it.” I also affirmed that “revelation is handed on authoritatively within a Church community. Catholic theologians freely accept that authority.” And in that community, the bishops have a special role in discerning what constitutes the faith of the Church. I don’t know how I could have been clearer on this point. But a theologian might wish to propose to the hierarchy better ways to express even dogmatic teaching. That dogmatic teachings have limitations was made clear in the June 1973 Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae, which makes clear that definitions of doctrine are subject to a four-fold historical conditioning.
Whitehead has misinterpreted what I said when I wrote that theologians also have a “critical” role. Criticism does not mean the rejection of infallible teachings. It could, however, lead to disagreement with some non-infallible teachings. Catholic theologians can legitimately disagree with some official non-infallible teachings. Such disagreement, I would hope, would be rare, always respectful, and offered to other theologians and bishops rather than to the press in a news conference. It is difficult, however, for theologians to discuss such criticisms with one another, for example at an academic conference, without the media learning about it and immediately publishing it, usually in a sensationalized form. Again, I have written about all this more than a decade ago.
Since then, Cardinal Ratzinger himself, in The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, recognized that there are situations in which theologians in good conscience might have difficulty accepting certain official teachings (since “some magisterial documents might not always be free from all deficiencies”), and recommends that theologians then communicate their concerns and criticisms directly to their bishops. Nor do I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger would have any problem with theologians discreetly and honestly talking amongst themselves about such deficiencies, always with a view to offering improvements and corrections for the sake of the larger Church and greater fidelity to the Gospel. In recommending that theologians present their criticisms to their bishops, is Ratzinger setting theologians over bishops? I do not think so. Rather, he is stressing as obligatory for theologians the same important type of “critical” and faithful activity that I wanted to emphasize in my address, and which I feel Whitehead has misconstrued as creating an “alternate magisterium.”
Finally, Whitehead’s difficulty with getting my position right may be partly my own fault. In my address, I incorrectly attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger the phrase, “definitive but not infallible”—a phrase that several theologians have used to indicate that in their view some of the teachings that have recently been officially stated to be definitive are not by that fact alone automatically infallible. And indeed, the level of authority that a teaching should possess frequently constitutes one of the questions where a critical, but always respectful, role should be played by theologians. We know that over time the Church has come to see some earlier teachings as untenable: teachings for example on slavery, on the Jews, and on salvation outside the Church. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work of thoughtful and faithful theologians, and the lived experience of the laity, changes have been made.
Also, when describing the role of Ad Tuendam Fidem, I stated that it “argues” that theologians must accept its contents. The document doesn’t really make that argument; rather, it simply affirms certain statements about certain categories of teachings. But even that document might, as Cardinal Ratzinger said of “some magisterial documents,” not be “free from all deficiencies.” I conclude then that when theologians exercise such a critical and evaluative role, they are not usurping the role of the bishops, but rather assisting them and the entire Church in coming to a greater understanding of and fidelity to the revelation that we receive through the Church.
Movement continues
Kenneth D. Whitehead responds:
The significant movement on the Catholic university front, which became evident early this year, has not ceased; it has intensified. What the American bishops decide to do at their meeting in November has therefore become even more important. The prospect that the US bishops may enact norms with juridical force seems to have moved some Catholic educators to break ranks with the ACCU’s hitherto adamant opposition to any real implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
On April 28, 1999, the ACCU submitted its own “suggested alternative wording” of ECE to the US bishops. The ACCU paper fails to include the “mandate from competent ecclesiastical authority” for theologians required by ECE and by the Code of Canon Law (812). Instead, the ACCU paper simply includes a sentence reading: “Those who teach Catholic theology should do so in fidelity to the magisterium.” A statement such as this—recognizing that the Church has a magisterium—represents considerable progress for the ACCU. But it falls short of requiring the mandate which both canon law and ECE require.
This lack seems to have been evident even to some of the ACCU membership. As reported by the National Catholic Register in June, a group of Chicago-area schools led by Loyola University actually submitted their own proposed modification to the ACCU’s paper, substituting “in accordance with Canon 812” for “in fidelity to the magisterium” in the original ACCU paper.
Loyola University’s president, Father John J. Piderit, SJ, was quoted as defending this substitution, saying, “ I don’t see how any of this undermines the appropriate autonomy of an academic institution at all.”
Coming from the president of a leading American Catholic university today, this is surely a remarkable statement. For many years the ACCU has been stubbornly maintaining that any requirement of a mandate for university theology faculty members would undermine the university’s institutional autonomy, as well as the academic freedom of the faculty members in question. And in the June/July issue of First Things, Father Piderit made his position more explicit, arguing that the US bishops “are not attempting to control the university,” and describing the mandate for theologians as “non-burdensome.”
What could possibly have persuaded the president of a major Catholic university—and a Jesuit university at that—to have broken ranks with the majority view of the ACCU college and university presidents—namely, that the Canon 812 mandate does constitute an intolerable burden for schools? In his First Things article, Father Piderit himself supplies a very significant explanation: “I now see, as I did not before, how much importance the Holy See places on implementing Canon 812.” [emphasis added]
In other words, if Rome is determined, and if the US bishops really are moving at long last to implement the papal constitution on universities, then this Jesuit university president, for one, has decided that his school is not going to be among those that will no longer be able to bear the name “Catholic.” The unshakable conviction of Rome that ECE must be implemented in the United States, and the real movement by the US bishops to carry out what Rome has prescribed, have demonstrably had a profound effect.
Nevertheless, there are also increasing signs of nervousness on the part of some other Catholic academics, even ACCU leaders. In his smooth and bland response to my CWR Essay, Father Heft disclaims any intention of speaking for any “changed” ACCU position, and states that his views—critical of academic freedom as that notion has generally been understood by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) —represent “long-held” views which he has been pursuing as “an area of research,” and not as an ACCU official. We cannot but be gratified, of course, to learn that a noted Catholic academic and ACCU leader has long been critical of the simplistic AAUP view of what constitutes academic freedom. Nevertheless, this same Catholic academic has not been loath to accept the chairmanship of an organization which has long and steadily asserted a right to just this AAUP-style version of academic freedom.
Moreover, in claiming that I misrepresented him by accusing him “of setting up theologians as an ‘alternate magisterium,’” Father Heft simply re-asserts his original position, which affirms the possibility of licit theological dissent from the decisions of the magisterium. The liceity of such theological dissent (if it were licit) would logically entail the idea of an alternative magisterium, since theologians would be given a right to critical oversight over the magisterium.
Father Heft effectively limits the obligatory acceptance of Church teachings by Catholic theologians to “established Church dogma.” He then goes on to say that “Catholic theologians can legitimately disagree with some official non-infallible teachings.” But this was exactly the same position taken by Father Charles E. Curran and his fellow dissenters against Humanae Vitae back in 1968. A corollary of this asserted right to dissent has been the further claim by theologians to be able to decide which teachings are non-infallible.
In the very act of complaining that I misrepresented his viewpoint, then, Father Heft re-states his viewpoint without any change. This is the same erroneous position which dissenting Catholic theologians have held for the past thirty years. The 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis, was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order to exclude this position, just as Ad Tuendam Fidem was issued in order to place certain Church teachings beyond the “critical evaluation” by theologians which Father Heft continues to champion. Nothing in his letter calls for any change in the negative assessment I made of his position.
Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page
Back to Catholic World Report - October 1999 - Table of Contents