Conclusions of the Catholic University Faculty Board of Inquiry
Epilogue of Dissent in and for the Church
“The 30 July statement of the subject professors represents a responsible theological dissent from the teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, and this dissent is reasonably supported as a tenable scholarly position.
“The right of a theological scholar to dissent from noninfallible teachings of the magisterium is well documented, most recently in the 15 November 1968 pastoral letter of the American Bishops.
“From the perspective of the Church, there well may be novel elements in the use of the public media which must be resolved in the future, but the release of this statement cannot be regarded as contrary to the accepted norms of academic procedure. Neither the timing, the content, nor the means of securing circulation and concurrence of colleagues are to be regarded as extraordinary or improper in the light of current academic practices. The alternatives of either repressing the statement or of adopting a policy of concerted silence would have been more truly improper. Given the realities of the public media, the extensive theological dissent on this issue and the possibility of such dissent were certain to quickly become matters of widespread public knowledge. All allegations of surprise, confusion, scandal and related concerns must be judged in the light of this certain, public knowledge. The subject professors were compelled to some kind of honest response, and we conclude that the statement thus may have averted at least as much harm as it is alleged by some to have caused.
“The statement does not conflict with the Profession of Faith taken by subject professors. The statement of the professors constitutes a measure of dissent from a noninfallible statement of the authentic papal magisterium. Whether this dissent can better be described as reinterpretation or an attempt at development is not at issue; it is beyond the Board’s competence to delineate the doctrine concerning contraception, or to resolve other questions raised by the Encyclical itself, or the substantive content of the Theologians’ Statement. The question whether such dissent violates any special commitments of the subject professors as teachers of theology or other sacred sciences may be answered as follows:
A “With regard to the primary role of the theologian as a scholar, the following needs to be said:
1) “The theologian is properly limited to the data of his science, which include, among other elements, the pronouncements of the official papal and episcopal magisterium, which the theologian evaluates and interprets.
2) “Like any other scholar, the theologian is bound to communicate his findings to others, a responsibility which may be defined more extensively in view of his position in the Church ” (below).
3) ” The theologian is ultimately constrained only by truth itself. Since it is Catholic doctrine that any conflict between the faith and truth, as variously investigated and discerned, is only apparent and not real, the Roman Catholic theologian operates properly without any fear of the developments of his science. At the same time he recognizes the limitations of his own fallibility and his need to engage in a theological endeavor that is shared by other scholars.
4) “Inevitably, the theologian has been influenced by the ecclesiological dimensions associated with the Second Vatican Council. In particular, he is aware that his theological reflection must develop in dialogue with the entire Church and with others (cf., Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes; Paul VI’s Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam).
B “Since theologians are rightly conscious of other responsibilities which flow from their scholarship, the role of the theologian as a member of the Church requires consideration:
1) It is clear that the theologian has a true teaching function in the Church, which is part of the prophetic role common to all the baptized, although enhanced by the theologian’s professional competence and reflection. This office is nonofficial and nonauthentic in comparison with the hierarchical magisterium, but the latter is itself dependent upon the formulation of theologians. (Cf., Paul VI, Address to the International Congress on the Theology of the Second Vatican Council, 1966.)
2) “In the resolution of apparent conflicts between the findings of theological science and the expression of the hierarchical magisterium, both the hierarchy and the theologians are bound to enter into dialogue. This need has been explicitly recognized by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, especially in the light of contemporary means of communication (cf., pastoral statement, Human Life in Our Day, November, 1968). This dialogue may be unstructured or structured (cf., proposal of the School of Sacred Theology, stipulation of facts).
C. “With regard to the right of theologians to dissent from noninfallible teachings of the hierarchical magisterium:
1) “From the classical instances of major, discernible change in the teaching of the hierarchical magisterium, such as the teachings on interest taking, religious freedom, and biblical science, it is clear that noninfallible pronouncements are reversible. It is not pertinent whether the change takes place because of theological reflection and publication, the words or actions of the members of the Church who are not theologians, or intrinsic factors in human society: the fact of such change means that the door to theological inquiry is not closed.
2) “There has been an explicit and formal recognition of the right to dissent from noninfallible teaching, although couched in limited terms, even in the common teaching of theologians prior to the Second Vatican Council, that is, during the post-Tridentine period when the likelihood of such dissent was considered remote. (Cf., the theological manuals enumerated and cited in the prepared testimony.)
3) “The position of the Second Vatican Council, in speaking of the ‘religious assent’ required by noninfallible pronouncements of the hierarchical magisterium (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), must be understood in the light of the development of the text itself. The Council, by accepting the proposals of its Doctrinal Commission, deliberately omitted the text in the original scheme, which stated that a matter decided by the ordinary magisterium ‘can no longer be regarded as a matter for free debate among theologians’ (Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis). The Council likewise accepted the statements of the Doctrinal Commission: (a) that when an educated person is unable, for solid grounds, to give internal assent (to non-infallible teaching), approved theological explanation should be consulted (i.e., the common teaching of ‘approved theologian’ referred to above); and (b) that an observation seeking a conciliar statement of freedom for further investigation (i.e., of non-infallible teaching) and doctrinal progress ‘is true, but does not need to be brought in at this point.’
4) “The right to dissent in such cases has been most recently acknowledged by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the pastoral statement already mentioned.
5) “Finally, attention should be given to the arguments advanced concerning the usefulness of dissent by theologians within the Church community: it is a means of informing the sense of the faithful and of hastening the legitimate development of doctrine; it is a means of correcting a non-infallible statement and thus strengthening and supporting the continuity of the hierarchical magisterium; in Catholic doctrine it may be regarded as a working of the Spirit in the Church.
D. “With regard to the public character of dissent by theologians, in particular, by means of the popular communications media:
1) “The historical cases of doctrinal development through the dissent of theologians cannot be expected to provide parallels for the present time. Ecclesiological dimensions were not as fully developed or understood, nor were our contemporary means of communication available. Similarly, the theoretical position taken by theologians prior to the Second Vatican Council, largely restricting theological dissent to private expression, has to be re-evaluated.
2) “With regard to the distinction between public and private dissent, the restriction seems to have been objectively invalid and a disservice to truth, which the theologian should express freely and without reservation, even though aware of his own fallibility and careful to respect the rights of others, especially the role of the hierarchical magisterium.
3) “In any event, a clear development has taken place in the official recognition of the ‘right to know,’ as formulated in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and by Pope John XXIII’s (encyclical letters Mater et Magistra, Pacem in Terris\Second Vatican Council, Inter Mirifica, December 4, 1963). (U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Social Communications, May 4, 1967; Exhibit 50). In effect, this recognition demands that those who have knowledge should communicate it to those who have a need and a right to it. It means, moreover, that the new means of communication should be put at the service of the Gospel and, in the application to the legitimate teaching of theologians, that these means may be appropriate to cases of dissent by interpretation.
4) “The judgment whether a particular dissent should be communicated in one way or another must almost always be a matter of opinion, as the decision so to act must be dictated by practical wisdom. Attention must be paid to the arguments presented in the prepared testimony, in particular to the immediate need to correct a false notion of the Encyclical’s precise authority and to forestall a diffuse presentation of less-informed theological opinion by the media.
E. “With regard to the present case, the following may be added to the above more general principles:
1) “It is evident that theologians other than the professors have publicly dissented, in greater or less degree, in accord with the above concept of the theologian’s office, from the papal teaching in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. In particular, there were the other signatories of the Statement, principally members of the Catholic Theological Society of America and the College Theology Society, as well as individual theologians and groups of theologians in various countries. The several statements of the episcopal magisterium in other countries, which included interpretations differing in some measure from the Encyclical and which were based upon theological data, may also be mentioned.
2) “The Pastoral Statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Human Life in Our Day (November, 1968), issued after the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, recognizes the right of theologians to dissent from noninfallible teaching and takes into account the contemporary circumstances which may affect the public expression of that dissent.
3) “The Board feels that specific reference should be made to the several publics to which the professors felt responsible as theologians, according to their own statement: (a) to the whole Church; (b) to the pope and the other bishops; (c) to their fellow theologians; (d) to the individuals touched by the contraception issue; (e) to the priests of the United States, including former students; (f) to the University community; (g) to the public communications media; (h) to non-Catholics, especially those already engaged in dialogue; (i) to men of good will, to whom Humanae Vitae was addressed.
“It is clear that a Roman Catholic theologian may fail in his responsibility by excess or defect. In most instances the measures of excess or defect would be difficult to determine and would in fact be largely a matter of opinion.
“Only in the clearest instance of grave failure would a theologian be subject to the censure of his peers, and then his competence as a teacher should be judged by the same criteria as that of a scholar in any other discipline.
“In the present case the Board does not judge the correctness of the teaching of the professors nor does it feel that their course of action was necessarily the only one available. The Board has received substantial evidence of the seriousness of the theological endeavour in which the professors engaged and of the professors’ consciousness of their pastoral obligation as theologians.
“Acknowledging the legitimacy of theological dissent by way of evaluation and interpretation of non-infallible teachings of the hierarchical magisterium, and in the light of the above considerations, the Board recognizes the right of the professors to act as they did, in their capacity of Roman Catholic theologians, and it accepts their conviction that they had a duty so to act. It therefore finds that the professors acted responsibly as theologians.
“The statement was released within a very short time after the publication of the Encyclical. The question of the propriety of this suddenness has been raised. There are circumstances, however, to be considered. As already mentioned, the controversy was by no means new. Moreover, it was an important issue, and even those who are not moral theologians in the strict sense had had full opportunity and incentive to inform themselves and to take some position on the issue. The Encyclical’s teaching on artificial contraception purported to be and was in fact essentially the same teaching with which the theologians were familiar before the appearance of the Encyclical. The theologians were careful to read the document before framing their statement. It should also be noted that, had the theologians withheld or delayed their announcement, reporters would have sought their interpretations, as happened elsewhere. It is at least possible that any statements would have been issued with less opportunity for careful preparation and with much less control over the conditions of their release.
“With respect to the timing of the release, therefore, it is the opinion of the Board of Inquiry that the subject professors acted responsibly and in accord with American university practice.
“It is common academic practice to use all effective and rational means of publication and discussion. The dissemination of information and opinion in various ways is the most general service which the university performs for the public. The practice is encouraged by leaders outside the universities, including churchmen. Responsible dissemination to an appropriate audience is meant to improve the quality of information and understanding concerning religious issues.
“Moreover, as already mentioned, the dissemination of the theologians’ views through the public media was unavoidable. The press and television in America do not wait for news to come to them, but instead go to experts when this is appropriate. In the present instance the press and television took the initiative in trying to elicit statements from the theologians. The latter, for their part, showed professional restraint by refusing to make a statement until they had read the document and talked over their own response to it.
“Furthermore, it is unrealistic to suppose that all theological discussion of the issue could have been withheld from the public media, even if this were desirable. No one seems to argue for this position. On the other hand, any attempt to present only “approved” theological interpretations would have been contrived and even ominous, and would have strained the credibility of those who had already followed the controversy through the same public media. When controversy has been open, dissent inevitably becomes public.
“The public promulgation of the Statement has raised the question of ‘scandal’ in the minds of some. However, a suspicion that an opinion affecting the lives of millions had been self-suppressed through fear or silenced by authority would have strongly and adversely affected the credibility of the theologians and the hierarchical magisterium, and this might have led to other allegations of ‘scandal.’
“The Board of Inquiry does not find in the theologians’ use of public media any departure from accepted standards of responsible academic procedure as practiced in American universities.
“A further question has been raised concerning the profession of faith taken by professors of theology, among others, in virtue of canon 1406 of the Code of Canon Law and the Statutes of the University (art. 50).
“This profession of faith has taken different forms. Until 1967 the formulas of Pius IV, as enlarged after Vatican Council I by Pius IX, were employed; since May 31, 1967, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed has been used, with the following abbreviated addition: ‘I also embrace and retain each and everything regarding the doctrine of faith and morals, whether defined by solemn judgment or asserted and declared by the ordinary magisterium, as they are proposed by the Church, especially those things which concern the mystery of the holy Church of Christ, its Sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.’
1) “It is evident that the profession of faith made by professors of theology differs in no way from the profession made by other believing Roman Catholics.
2) “In the formula for the profession of faith, a distinction is made between the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is explicitly made the object of divine faith, and the additional text which is introduced: ‘I also embrace and retain. . . .’ In this added text the expression, ‘as proposed by the Church,’ illustrates the precise issue already discussed, namely, the potential area for permitted dissent, for cause, from non-infallible teachings.
3) “There is no incompatibility between the formula of assent to Catholic teachings and the declaration of the Second Vatican Council (Constitution on the Church, n. 25) concerning religious assent, in that ‘each and every thing’ commands varying degrees of consideration, as this has been explained above in the light of the conciliar development of its own text.
“The Board therefore finds that the professors in no way violated the profession of faith.”