Public Dissent in and for the Church

Chapter 5 from Dissent In and For the Church

In chapter two, theologians representative of the manualist tradition were cited as clearly teaching the possibility of dissent from authoritative noninfallible teachings of the hierarchical magisterium. One or another of them imply that this “possibility” may become an obligation for someone who perceives such cogent contrary reasons that to maintain assent would be a perversion of his rational faculties. On the question of public dissent or disagreement, however, most of the manualists maintained that one who suspends his internal assent still must keep a silentium obsequiosum and present his difficulties privately to the hierarchical authority itself. It has already been noted that some contemporary Catholic theologians, such as Schueller, K. Rahner and Donlon, writing before the issuance of Humane Vitae, explicitly recognized the limited horizon of the manualists’ restrictions and openly taught that public dissent might well be called for in some instances.

In the teaching of the manualists there are, nonetheless, elements which definitely argue for a futher development of the question; in fact, a contemporary rationale for “external” dissent seems quite continuous with some of the underlying principles and values which can be gleaned from the manualists themselves.

For example, all the manualists agree that noninfallible teaching calls for a conditional assent, not an absolute and irrevocable one, since the ultimate possibility of error is inherent in the very nature of fallible teachings. The pope, they acknowledged, might feel it helpful to the Church to “permit” public discussion to confirm the truth of a teaching, or to prepare the way for an infallible statement. At least one manualist saw several potential results from continued inquiry: acceptance of a teaching by the whole Church, or possible detection of error! Further discussion and inquiry, then, could either confirm the truth or discover a mistake. But in either case, the Church would be served.

The fact that many of the manualists do not allow for public dissent cannot be taken, therefore, as an absolute norm always obliging in all conceivable circumstances. The controlling value in all cases appears to be the good of the Church. Service of the Church is the enduring value which pervaded the manualist tradition on this point, and should constitute the dominant concern of every approach to the contemporary question of public manifestation of dissent in the Church; dissent in the Church must always be dissent for the Church.

It is well to recall here also that the question of dissent in the manualist tradition is properly cast in the category of the interpretive function of the theologian. Theological dissent is itself a part of the theological tradition which must constantly be reinterpreted! The following considerations, in addition to those in chapter four, attempt to summarize some of the more pertinent elements which bear upon such work of reinterpretation, both in theory and in the everyday reality of the life of the Church. In effect, they constitute truly ecclesiological presuppositions and implications of interpretive dissent from Humanae Vitae.

The Teaching of the Church on Information, Communication and the Use of Mass Media

Any discussion of responsible public expression today of a dissenting theological interpretation must take careful account of the Church’s teaching on communications and the use of the mass media. Precisely because the extent and the power of the mass communications media is a relatively recent phenomenon, the attitude of the Church to these matters did not receive full expression until the twentieth century.

In Mater et Magistra, John XXIII characterized our epoch as one of “socialization” (rationum incrementa socialium), an age of “the growing interdependence of men in society giving rise to various patterns of group life and activity.” John XXIII goes on to say:

It is clear that many benefits and advantages flow from socialization thus understood. It makes possible, in fact, the satisfaction of many personal rights, especially those of a socio-economic nature. The right to the indispensable means of human subsistence, to health services, to instruction at a higher level, to more thorough professional formation, to housing, to employment, to suitable leisure and to decent recreation are typical examples. In addition, through increasing systematisation of modern media of mass communications—press, motion pictures, radio, television—it becomes possible for individuals to participate, as it were, in human events even on a world-wide scale. (1)

The recognition of the complexities of modern life has led the Church to weigh the moral aspects involved. John XXIII’s Encyclical, Pacem in Terris, recognizes that “by the natural law, every human being has the right to respect for his person, to his good reputation, to freedom in searching for truth and—within the limits laid down by the moral order and the common good—in expressing and communicating his opinions, and in pursuit of art. He has the right, finally, to be informed truthfully about public events.” (2)

The right to be truthfully informed, and also to search freely for the truth and express one’s opinions, is clearly affirmed, and this right is taken up again in the Decree on the Media of Social Communications promulgated by Vatican Council II .(3) The conciliar fathers claim that the announcing of the good news of salvation is to be done also with the help of the media of social communications. The use of the media for such a purpose is indeed an “inherent right” of the Church, and “it is the duty of Pastors to instruct and guide the faithful so that they, with the help of these same media, may further the salvation and perfection of them¬selves and of the entire human family.” The Decree recognizes the usefulness and the need of information in contemporary society, and it goes on to say:

Therefore, in society men have a right to information, in accord with the circumstances in each case, about matters concerning individuals or the community. The proper exercise of this right demands, however, that the news itself that is communicated should always be true and complete, within the bounds of justice and charity. In addition, the manner in which the news is communicated should be proper and decent. This means that in both the search for news and in reporting it, there must be full respect for the laws of morality and for the legitimate rights and dignity of the individual. (4)

Paragraph 11 of the document states that the “principal moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communications falls on newsmen, writers,” and others of similar vocation. But at the same time it is recognized that “all must strive, through these media as well, to form and spread sound public opinion.” (5)

Concretely, how are these principles to be worked out? The emphasis on the moral responsibility of newsmen is quite proper, but the education of these men in various fields of knowledge must also be assured. The ecclesiastical hierarchy has recognized this need at Vatican Council II, and at regional episcopal confer¬ences, by establishing press panels for the instruction of reporters and writers.

Pope John XXIII was acutely aware of this need; in his address to the journalists covering the Council (October 13, 1962), recalling to his audience the fact that prejudices against the Church exist, he stated:

These prejudices rest most often on inaccurate or incomplete information. People attribute to the Church doctrines which she does not profess; they blame her for attitudes which she has taken in definite historical circumstances and which they unjustifiably generalize without taking into account their accidental and [contingent] character. (6)

Speaking to the members of the Catholic Press Association on May 17, 1968, Bishop James Shannon, in the same vein, asserted that “we have made secrecy into a way of life in the Catholic Church.” He recognized that “we have a long way to go in the Catholic Church before we can convince ourselves that we have an obligation to share more and more information with all of the media of communication. … It has been a revelation to the general press to find out that we do have differences of opinion within the Catholic Church, that on a given matter which is not de fide there are heated discussions among the bishops, among the editors, and among official spokesmen for the Church.” (7)

On the occasion of World Communications Day (May 4, 1967), the United States Bishops’ Committee for Social Communications issued a statement that underlined man’s right to information:

Man’s right to be informed is a natural, inherent right. It is given him by God himself. It is not a privilege conferred by any authority. … By the same token, this right to information places important demands upon both those who have a duty to inform as well as those who are the professional communicators. To be sure, the circumstances in each case demand a great deal of prudence, taking into consideration those twin pillars of the moral order, justice and charity. The right to information, however, we firmly believe must be stressed today because only a true and complete knowledge will enable society and man as an individual to stand secure in an age of intellectual and moral turmoil. Moreover, the corollary of the right to information is the right to full expression . (8)

The bishops observed that the Church opposed totalitarianism because of the dignity of man, and that one aspect of man’s dignity is his freedom:

History affords us many examples of the fact that freedom suffers the moment man’s inherent right to information begins to be curtailed. Thus we reiterate this fundamental right, not only because it is necessary for the freedom that the Church expects from the State, and rightly so, but also because it is man’s constant defense against the suppression of his own birthright of freedom. (9)

Indeed, in all quarters today it is recognized that public opinion is of vital importance in society. This is true also in the Church society, as was recognized by Pope Pius XII in his address to the Third International Congress of the Catholic Press on February 17th 1950. The Pope defined public opinion as “a natural echo, a more or less spontaneous common resounding of acts and circumstances in the mind and judgment of people who feel they are responsible beings, closely bound to the fate of their community.” His words about public opinion “within the bosom of the Church” are particularly important:

Finally we should like to add a word regarding public opinion within the bosom of the Church (naturally, with respect to matters left to free discussion). This consideration can surprise only those who do not know the Church or know her only poorly. Because the Church is a living body, something would be wanting in her life if public opinion were lacking—and the blame for this deficiency would fall back upon the pastors and the faithful. (10)

Cardinal Cushing developed this thought further in his pastoral letter of Good Shepherd Sunday, 1963, The Church and Public Opinion, when he wrote: (11)

For us, public opinion may be described as the beliefs, attitudes and judgments held by members within the Church, and especially those views which are expressive of the usual working of the Spirit, making ever more manifest the divine truth within it. This will include an ex¬pression of views concerning those contemporary areas of life and action where the Church’s teachings need to be applied more fully or with greater precision. A further element will also show itself in public opinion as a reaction to abuses which, through human frailty, may at any time be developing within the Church as an institution. Public opinion then is an existent and visible force within the Church which consists in the confluence of many individual opinions on those matters which touch upon the Christian life. The more mature the society and the more committed its members become to the implications of their faith, the more sure are we to have a living ferment of Christian thought among us. (12)

These hierarchical teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on the right to know, the duty to inform, the right to free self- expression, the role of public opinion and the use of communications media are clear and contemporary. They are also significant ecclesiological factors intrinsic to any adequate articulation of the nature of Church life, both within its own household and in relationship to the several communities with which the Church is in dialogue.

Responsibilities of Theologians in and for the Church: Communities to Which They Owe a Duty of Communication

The obligations and responsibility of the contemporary theologian are manifold. He has a responsibility to truth to make his interpretation known in such a manner that the truth may best be served. The theologian has an obligation to the whole Church as the people of God, who are constantly striving to “do the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Truth above all is respected in the Church. Such truth must not be sought in a way that would heedlessly destroy or lessen the fellowship of love uniting the members of the Church in the unity of the whole Christ. Scandal should be avoided as far as possible. However, the pilgrim Church will always know the tension of trying to do the truth in love; such tension can never be totally eliminated. Thus, prudent judgments will be required in each instance to determine the best way to search out and to communicate the truth to minimize the risk of harm which must be accepted.

The theologian has an obligation to the pope and other bishops of the Church in their hierarchical and magisterial role. The theologian has an obligation to supply to the hierarchical pastoral office in the Church the necessary theological data so that bishops can properly make pastoral judgments and doctrinal pronounce¬ments.

The theologian has an obligation to his fellow theologians to express his views in such a manner that other theologians can appraise such views in their continual and communal searching for the truth.

The theologian has an obligation of interpretation to the individuals directly touched by the particular point in question. These are the people most in need of assistance, especially in terms they themselves can assimilate and understand. The Encyc¬lical created a grave crisis for many people torn between their personal convictions on birth control and their loyalty to the Church. They had a right to know that the position that one may dissent from authoritative, noninfallible teaching without cutting himself off from the Church of God is a responsible, Catholic possibility.

The theologian has an obligation to the priests of the country who have been trained to look for theological opinions and judgments from theologians. Priests were quickly confronted with questions about the papal document and conscientiously wanted to respond to such requests, but they needed theological advice and direction to respond. This obligation of theologians to priests was especially incumbent upon the faculty of The Catholic University of America. The unique position of the University and its unique character give a special obligation and responsibility to those who are invited to teach on its faculty. Furthermore, as academicians, the subject professors would have an added obligation to inform their former students of continuing and important developments in their own fields of competency. The former students who have received their theological training at The Catholic University of America now reside in all parts of the country and abroad.

The theologian has an obligation to his university community. Psychology, sociology, biology and many other sciences are in dialogue with theology. In addition, the professional schools of law, nursing and social work frequently need and expect theological interpretations.

The theologian has an obligation to the public communications media. Recent popes have spoken eloquently about the obligation of the press to express the truth to its readers. The media expressed a great interest in the issue of birth control, and many stories were devoted to the Encyclical. Reporters, writers and editors generally lack the requisite theological competency to interpret theological statements and even fail to realize the existence of the accepted Catholic teaching allowing dissent from authoritative, noninfallible teachings under certain conditions. There was a great danger that through the press the issue would be so polarized that many people would feel a conflict between their personal conviction on birth control and their loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church. Only a properly informed press could fulfill its dignified mission and obligation to the truth. The theologian must provide this necessary background and interpretation for the press.

The theologian also has an obligation to non-Catholics in general, especially through his contacts with theologians and leaders in other churches. (Many of the subject professors, sometimes as official representatives of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the United States, have been in ecumenical dialogue with non-Catholics with the express purpose of interpreting Catholic theology to them and searching together in dialogue for the truth.) At times such as those following the issuance of a long-awaited papal pronouncement, the need for such interpretation is even greater.

The theologian has an obligation to all men of good will. In Catholic theology itself a universalism, which was strong in the teachings and writings of Pope Pius XII, became even more explicit in the encyclicals of John XXIII, which were also addressed for the first time to “all men of good will.” Humanae Vitae is likewise addressed by Paul VI to all men of good will. Thus all men of good will were also in need of the interpretation of the Encyclical. Likewise, Catholic theologians have the obligation to show the credibility of the Church to all mankind. This becomes more necessary in our own day when even some Catholics have attacked the credibility of the Church. This obligation to make the Church and the teachings of the Church more credible is the work of interpretation. However, dissent itself can also serve the credibility of the Church, especially among those who incorrectly understand the Church as an authoritarian institution denying true freedom and, in particular, freedom of discussion in theological matters. They frequently fail to realize that the Church has traditionally allowed for such freedom of discussion by theologians in areas of noninfallible teaching.

The responsible theologian must be cognizant of all these diverse obligations which are incumbent upon him. To neglect any of these responsibilities would be irresponsible. The manifold responsibilities of the theologian to truth, to the whole Church, to the bishops, to fellow theologians, to the individuals directly involved, to priests generally, to his academic community, to the communications media, to non-Catholics and to all men of good will provide the constant factors with respect to which the theologian must evaluate his declarations and actions. The interpretive possibility of public dissent must be weighed with respect to all the foregoing factors in the light of prudence. Thus, the existing norm of public dissent consists not in a simple, verbal formula in the former manualist style but rather in the prudent balancing of the accepted values represented by each of the foregoing constant constituencies of the theologian.

In the contemporary ecclesiological context, therefore, theologians are conscious of their co-responsibility for the entire Church and their many different relationships with the other people of God. Contemporary ecclesiology is conscious of the different roles and functions in the Church which work together to build up the whole body of Christ. The hierarchical office and function, though necessary for the Church and of great importance, is not the only functioning role in the Church. In the contemporary understanding of the modern age of communications, theologians realize that there are abundant and effective means available for the communication of theological interpretations. On other questions the subject professors themselves have often been asked to appear on radio and television pro¬grams and to grant interviews to the press. Requests for such communication of theological interpretations have come from the University itself and from official agencies of the United States Catholic Conference under the auspices of the American bishops.

Ecclesiology and the modern communications media have made both theologians and the magisterium aware of the function of public opinion in the Church. Pope Pius XII asserted the role of public opinion in the Church, even though at times an earlier generation rejected such a notion. Theologians, taking their lead from Pius XII, have developed the notion and place of such public opinion in the Church.

Also, as already noted, in the last few years, some theologians writing about the mode of dissent in the light of some of the developing theological context admit the possibility of public dissent. (13)

Thus the Roman Catholic theologian has a responsibility and an obligation to interpret the teachings of the Church even to the point of dissenting from “authoritative, non-infallible teachings of the magisterium when sufficient reasons for so doing exist.” (14) Such dissent must be expressed in a responsible manner, which for the Roman Catholic means a way in which the good of the Church is ultimately helped and not hindered.

Public Nature and Practical Urgency of the Issue

The fact that Humanae Vitae concerns a matter that is not speculative and not practically indifferent such as, for example, subsistent relations in the Trinity, or the quality of Adam’s original justice, but rather a matter of immediate and urgent practical consequence for millions of persons, both Catholic and non-Catholic, placed the subject matter, of its very nature, into the forum of public concern. It thus involves the “right to know,” and the correlative “duty to inform,” pertaining to a category of persons co¬extensive with the audience of the mass communication media. The class of persons vitally interested in Humanae Vitae is so vast that the ordinary channel of communication with such persons would be the mass communications media. Perhaps in recognition of the urgency of this question, theological interpretations approving the Encyclical’s ethical conclusion have been made public to and through the mass communications media, beginning with Professor Lambruschini’s press conference on July 29.

The possibility of mistake in papal teaching on this urgent matter, however, raises the question, in turn, of whether theological interpretation critical of the Encyclical should be communicated to the same public by the same means. Catholics believe eventually that the truth or error of the papal teaching will emerge. The process of confirmation or of correction could take a critically long time, however, if the necessary dialogue is conducted in private. Although the Church might not suffer if the process of confirmation of Humanae Vitae were to be prolonged, it would be most difficult to maintain that values protected by private discussion outweigh the harm that could be done to the Church if the process of correction were unduly prolonged, especially in this issue of immediate, urgent and practical consequence for the daily lives of millions of persons. If there is a real possibility of error, furthermore, the Church has nothing to fear from public discussion! If the teaching is correct, Catholics believe that the Spirit will confirm their teaching. If the teaching is incorrect, it can best be corrected if the freedom to consider the matter further is enjoyed by hierarchical magisterium and theologians alike.

Since collaboration and communication is a necessary part of the theological endeavour, the exercise of such freedom can hardly remain “private.” No theological journal is so abstruse and no language so arcane as to prevent immediate (not merely eventual) publication of critical theological views of the Encyclical by the modern press, which was even able to obtain the papal statement days ahead of the official release. It is not certain that one can even speak of “private” theological discussion on such critical issues. In fact, the mass media began disseminating information throughout the world concerning Humanae Vitae and its content on July 27, two days before its official release to the public press at the Vatican, from an official English translation. The news media were not hesitant to give their own untrained “interpretations” of the normative significance of the Encyclical for Roman Catholics. These facts at least make clear that theological discussion, in these days of the pervasive presence of the press, cannot be confined quietly to the “speculative” pages of scholarly journals. The communica¬tions enterprises of today subscribe to such journals, and when an issue for speculative inquiry has dynamic effect on the lives of millions, the mass journals will be quick to expose and analyse significant scholarly opinion. Theologians must recognize this possibility if they are to prevent the scandal which may result from a misinterpretation of their own or others’ scholarly views by well- meaning but not necessarily well-trained media reporters. Any notion that scholarly theological opinion written in journals can generally be quietly confined to private distribution is today a myth. In the face of the reality of likely exposure of his scholarly views on topical issues, the theologian acts with prudence when he chooses to issue a candid statement of legitimate views on his own motion, lest his position be misconstrued by press interpretation.

Respect for Hierarchical Teaching Authority. Responsible theological interpretation is not disrespectful to the hierarchical teaching authority. Nor will the laity lose respect for the teaching authority of the Church if such “dissenting” interpretation becomes generally known, if the faithful have generally and accurately been taught the respective and mutual roles of teacher and believer in the Church, that generally all pronouncements on religious mat¬ters are not of equal authoritative weight and that the responses they owe differ accordingly.(15) Danger of scandal and disrespect in the wake of public dissent would be considerably mitigated by accurate and adequate instruction on the nature and function of the papal teaching office. It was the strong recommendation of the Vatican Synod of Bishops in 1967 that “clearly and in ways adapted to the contemporary mentality” the faithful be taught their responsibilities before the magisterium.(16) A clear and intelligent explanation of the various responses a Catholic owes to the various exercises of the Church’s teaching office, including a discussion of the circumstances under which it is quite legitimate and even necessary for a Catholic to suspend his assent, is an exercise of theological responsibility recognising an existing “need to know” in the Church.

Public Dissent as a Balance of Values

Development in the science of theology, the methodology practiced by contemporary theologians and the ecclesiological insights of Vatican II and postconciliar theology contribute to a full theological understanding of the “right of dissent” which was articulated in a limited context by the manualist authors. In the era of mass communications, in the context of a co-responsible Church and in respect of moral issues with immediate practical consequences for millions of persons, the propriety of publication of “dissenting” theological opinion cannot be judged by inference to a fixed general formula in the manualist style. That is not to say that one’s right to publish dissent is as broad as his opinion requires. The interpretative task of the theologian requires him not only to eschew simplistic formulas but also to identify the factors that must be weighed and balanced to determine whether publication of dissent is proper in a particular case. Thus, the theologian exercises the right to dissent in the living context, taking into consideration the substance and impact of the views in question as a key factor, but not the only factor, determining the manner in which such dissent should be expressed.

Each factor he identifies will represent a value to be protected. Some of the relevant factors and values with respect to the question of dissent from Humanae Vitae have been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. The ultimate judgment on the balance of the factors and values becomes a question of practical prudence.

Prudence as Practical Wisdom

In the Chritian tradition, prudence is practical wisdom that reduces the abstract and general principles of moral theology to particular practice. It is not a virtue that stands by itself, but one that enters into the practice of all the other virtues. Imprudence characterizes moral actions that are ill-advised, reflect careless judgment or are negligent. Prudence is the practical wisdom that conditions reason to right action. Any human action involving morality, and therefore, prudence, is virtuous not because of good intention or subjective honesty but because the action itself is good . (17)

Concerning the public communication of theologians’ “dissenting” interpretation of an authoritative papal teaching ad¬dressed to the entire world, theologians must ascertain: (i) if the dissent among them is of a character and dimension that makes the dissent itself significant for the general interpretation of the papal document; (2) if the public at large is entitled to a knowledge of the fact of this dissent; (3) how their dissent is to be communicated so as to serve the good of the Church and of the public at large; and (4) if the public expression of dissent will result in good for the Church and for its image among the public at large that will outweigh the evil that may conceivably result from it.

The steps involved in the public expression of dissent among theologians are matters of practical judgment. The validity of such judgments cannot be scientifically established, but nonetheless can (and must) be based on reasonably sound knowledge in the practical order. Such knowledge is part of the professional equipment of theologians, gained in the practical execution of their responsibility as theologians. It is their task to be familiar with the paramount issues in the thought and life of the Church at any given time, to ascertain the opinions, points of view and attitudes of their professional colleagues, to be aware of the sentiments, moods and actual decision-making on such issues within the Church, the influences that produce them, and their theological implications; and, finally, to be alert to the degree of conflict within the Church on a given issue, to the likely impact of a papal decision on the issue and of the reasons offered for that decision, and to the impact of the papal decision in the world outside the Roman Catholic Church itself. Since the entire process of the public communication of dissent involves a series of practical judgments, there will be dissenters to the dissent; what is at issue is “practical wisdom,” an area of human activity in which unanimity is rarely achieved, especially on issues that are complex.

Intraecclesial Dialogue and Magisterial Process

The necessity of dialogue between teaching and believing Church and, in this instance, the possibility that the teaching of Humanae Vitae may be incorrect, indicate the desirability of broadly based intraecclesial dialogue. Dialogue has always played a major role in the development of Church teaching in the past, as the most casual reading of the history of the councils makes abundantly clear. Within the people of God, furthermore, public opinion is necessary in order that total understanding and unity can be fostered. In a matter that is not de fide, all voices should be heard, for the sake of mature theological results.

Extraecclesial Dialogue

The Roman Catholic Church proclaims and attempts to live a sincere and full dialogic relationship to the several other communities which, together with the Church, comprise the totality of the worldwide human family: separated Christians, Jews, other non-Christians, “unbelievers” and “secular society,” or the world at large. Humanae Vitae is itself addressed to “all men of good will” and treats issues which affect all persons in the practical as well as theoretical order; it has special words for governments, scientists, physicians, priests and spouses. The “addressees” of the Encyclical can “respond” in dialogue to the Roman Catholic Church only if they know whether there exist responsible alternate options within full Catholic hierarchical and eucharistic fellowship.(18)

Testimony of Expert Witnesses

Contemporary, living expertise and testimony is an essential element in the theological work of reinterpretation, especially in the instance of a responsible public dissent from the position taken by the papal magisterium in Humanae Vitae. Such expert testimony was, in fact, delivered before the Catholic University Inquiry Panel.

The Reverend Walter J. Burghardt, S.J., Editor-in-Chief of Theological Studies, and Professor of Patristic Theology, Woodstock College, testified that the Statement by Catholic Theologians could not have been confined within technical theological journals, given the current circumstances, including subscription to theological journals by major news media and the popular interest in the Encyclical.(19) Furthermore, even if dissent from the Encyclical could have been confined to technical theological journals, it should not have been. According to Professor Burghardt, the majority of theologians would hold that the task of the theologian ordinarily involves going beyond what can be found in magisterial statements. The theologian has a real relationship with the faithful which makes it necessary for him, with increasing frequency, to deal immediately with large groups of the faithful, and a theologian, since Vatican II, can no longer disregard the impact of magisterial statements on non-Catholics.

Professor Burghardt further testified that, in view of the responsible reasons for a public response of theologians to the Encyclical, and in view of the three or four years of serious theological study and controversy that had been going on before the Encyclical was promulgated, the response set forth in the Statement by Catholic Theologians was not excessively quick in the circumstances. Professor Burghardt affirmed that the common teaching of the “manualists” regarding dissent from authoritative, noninfallible magisterial teachings permitted such dissent if done in a semiprivate manner; the changed communications and education situation within the Church, however, allows theologians to take from the manualists the right to dissent and determine in the present changed circumstances the prudentially appropriate manner of expressing such dissent; the manualist restriction of the manner of dissent to “semiprivate” no longer applies. If other factors justified a public dissent in the circumstances, the impact of dissent on the “authority” of the magisterium would not be a sufficient reason to refrain from public dissent.

Professor Burghardt concluded his testimony with the proposition that any scandal, in the sense of placing an obstacle into the development of the life of a Christian, possibly caused by the Statement by Catholic Theologians, was permissible because of the greater good to be achieved by the immediate issuance of the Statement. It would have been even more scandalous if later it became known that hundreds, if not thousands, of theologians had been convinced that dissent from the Encyclical was possible but had kept silence. He testified that his obligations as a member of a Pontifical Faculty to sincerely acknowledge the authority of the Pope and to present the doctrine of the Encyclical as the official and authoritative doctrine of the Church in teaching and preaching were in no way compromised or violated by his subscription to the Statement by Catholic Theologians.

Professor Burghardt himself was a subscriber to the Statement by Catholic Theologians, and shortly after April i, 1969, it became a public fact that he had testified in support of public dissent at the Catholic University Inquiry. Nevertheless, on April 30,1969, Pope Paul VI named him a member of the thirty-man international panel of theologians to evaluate new trends in theology.

Kenneth Woodward, Religion Editor of Newsweek, explained the methods and practices of the religion department of Newsweek magazine in obtaining, formulating and selectively publicizing matters of general theological interest or concern.(20) He testified that expert and representative theological views are actively and constantly solicited by his worldwide staff; that a large number of technical and semi-technical theological and religious periodicals are subscribed to and read by Newsweek, and that editors and publishers of scholarly theological works spontaneously supply him with advance notice or copies of “interesting” writings precisely so that they may be communicated popularly to the widest possible audience. In his expert view, it is virtually impossible today to conceal a significant theological view from the public. A sudden “silence” by American theologians after the issuance of Humanae Vitae would have been inexplicable, and would have itself given rise to a Newsweek story speculating on the reasons for silence. Even if the Statement by Catholic Theologians of July 30, 1968, had never been made, the Newsweek story immediately pursuant to the release of Humanae Vitae would have been substantially the same, gleaned from European and worldwide theo¬logical spokesmen. He further testified that, in any event, large- scale “private” dissent on the part of American theologians from the specific ethical conclusion of the Encyclical would have quickly and inevitably become “public.”

The Reverend John Coleman Bennett, President, Union Theological Seminary, testified that the concept of the responsibility of the theologians found in the prepared written testimony of the subject professors was an admirable formulation, and that theologians might be guilty of withdrawal from responsibility if they hesitated to make public a responsible theological point of view (within the context of their own faith-commitment) merely because such a point of view represented a challenge to traditional formulations.(21) He thought that suppression of such public disagreement might lead to even more confusion than the statements made initiating the dialogue.

Professor Bennett further testified that the Statement by Catholic Theologians was enormously helpful to the Protestant community in mitigating the appearance of the Roman Catholic Church as a monolithic institution, and that, specifically, the dissent of professors at Catholic University has created a favourable impression of the University in ecumenical circles because it showed that there is academic freedom at the University, and that theologians at the University are able to speak as scholars and thinkers.

Reverend John H. Hotchkin, Associate Director, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified that, given the ecumenical commitment of the Catholic Church since Vatican II, and given the concern among a number of Protestant officials as to whether or not there was a retrenchment within the Catholic Church in its ecumenical relations, the calibre of responsible dissent within the Catholic Church evidenced in the Statement by Theologians subscribed to by the subject professors had a positive ecumenical value. Specifically, the Statement made it possible for non-Catholics to be more muted, more calm and more patient in the face of a teaching on birth control whose method and content was disagreeable.(22) He testified that a dissent from the Encyclical disguised in any other style would not have had the same positive ecumenical effects.

Developing theological and ecclesiological insights show that the possession of responsible, interpretive theological views by Roman Catholic scholars demands of them appropriate external manifestation and communication of such views. This is equally true when the specific, responsible interpretive views include a responsible dissent from authoritative, non-infallible teaching of the hierarchical magisterium.

Appropriate external manifestation and communication, in principle and from the very nature of the Church itself, require that all persons who have the right to know such responsible, interpretative theological views be apprised of them as quickly, candidly and efficiently as possible. Such appropriate external manifestation and communication in actual fact today requires the effective use of the ordinary means of mass social communications media, when “all persons who have the right to know” is a category which is coextensive with every person who would have access to and be dependent on such media.

Notes

John XXIII, Mater et Magister, para.61 (emphasis added).
John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, para 12 (emphasis added).
Vatican II, Decree on the Media of Social Communications, para. 3.
Ibid., para. 5 (emphasis added).
Ibid., para. 8 (emphasis added).
John XXIII, Address to the Journalists covering the Council, October 13, 1962. NCWC News Service.
Bishop James Shannon, Address to the Catholic Press Association, May 17, 1968, NCWC News Service.
American Bishops’ Committee for Social Communications Statement on the Occasion of World Communications Day, May 4, 1967, NCWC News Service.
Ibid.
Pius XII, Address to the Third International Congress of the Catholic Press on Feb. 17, 1950, NCWC News Service.
R. Cardinal Cushing, Pastoral Letter of 1963, The Church and Public Opinion, NCWC News Service.
For an expansion of these materials, and specific application to the life of the Church, cf., P. Granfield, “Ecclesial Cybernetics: Com-munication in the Church,” Theological Studies, 29 (1968), pp. 662-78.
Cf. supra, pp. with notes 70-72.
Statement, n. 8.
Unfortunately, American Catholics did not receive clear teaching on such matters in 1967; cf., American Bishops’ Pastoral Letter of 1967, The Church in Our Day (Washington: U.S.C.C., 1969), pp. 69-73.
Cf. P. Hebblewaithe, S.J., Inside the Synod: Rome 1967 (New York:Paulist, 1968), p. 155.
T. Gilby, O. P., “Prudence,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 925-28.
See P. D. Morris, Ecumenical Dialogue as An Operative Principle in the Christian Unity Movement (Doctoral Dissertation, unpublished), Washington: School of Theology, The Catholic University of America, 1967.
Transcript of Proceedings, Catholic University Board of Inquiry, 388-441.
Ibid., pp. 655-89.
Ibid., pp. 482-510.
Ibid., pp. 579-609.

Return to Index? or Continue to Chapter 6.