While the Magisterium possesses authority, it is often difficult to know when that authority is being exercised and what level of authority is being employed when it is. There are two extreme positions which Catholics must avoid: The first is assuming that only infallible declarations have authority, and anything which is not defined through use of papal infallibility is free to be questioned and disobeyed without restriction. The second is assuming that anything and everything that is spoken of by the Magisterium is definitive, unchangeable and must be accepted without question. The first, of course, tends towards doctrinal infidelity, while the second tends toward a bankrupt, propositional absolutism which has no sense of a living faith.
The authority of the Church rests on the authority of Christ, with the leaders of the Church being given a special charism by the Holy Spirit to help direct and guide the Church through history. We must understand that the Church acts to continue the work and presence of Christ in history, to take the eternal work of Christ and to manifest it in history. The Church’s teachings are not to be understood as logical propositions which are formed by mere reason, but rather, they are to be understood as the explanation necessary in order to point us to Christ and to help bring us into Christ, so that we can then be authentic followers of Christ.
Rationalism has, for quite some time, infected us with a misunderstanding of doctrine, assuming doctrine to be propositional. But how can this be, if the Church’s teachings are about truth? Truth, as Christianity teaches, is not found in philosophical propositions, but in the person of Jesus Christ. Truth itself only can be said to be true because of Christ. This means, of course, that one who has some element of truth, however small, has in that element of truth something of Christ: “everyone who is doing the truth is making some kind of approach to Christ, whether or not they name him as Christ. As Christ himself says, ‘Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice’ (Jn 18.37).”[1] The rationalistic mind, however, does not want to understand this; it wants to break truth apart, to dissect truth in order to find the elements of truth, and to declare each of those elements to be the truth. As with all such dissections, what is examined is dead. What is discovered in such a dissection can never be brought back together to recreate the truth. The problem with debates over propositions as if they are debates about the truth is that they are debates over what has been discovered in dissection, and what is debated is merely how one is to cut up truth in order to dissect it: one person will divide its elements one way, the next another.[2]
Propositions can be helpful if we understand their relative nature, and how they are to serve as signs of the truth, pointing to something beyond themselves. Whether or not a proposition is capable of pointing to the truth or pointing to some untruth, however, lies in its relationship with the truth in Christ. The Church is the one who has the charism to discern when a proposition (understood within its proper linguistic context) is an authentic pointer to the truth or not, and the teaching authority is to be exercised in order to help us see those pointers. This is because the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1Tim 3:15).
Now we must understand in the handling of these propositions, the Church looks to Christ and establishes a hierarchy of truths, all based upon how they connect to the revelation of established by Christ. Vatican Council II, in its Decree on Ecumenism, reminded the faithful of this as a means by which Catholics are to engage other Christians: we must remember what is central, and engage on essentials first, not the periphery.[3] This means that “church dogmas must be understood and interpreted in the light of their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith.”[4]
This hierarchy of truths must not be confused to the level of authority the Church has used to discuss and proclaim its teachings. Something might be higher up in the hierarchy of truth, without much question as to its truth, and so have received proclamations based upon lower levels of teaching authoritatively. The use of teaching authority and its claim over the faithful is different from the question of the hierarchy of truths; the Church’s teaching authority is used to respond to questions and issues that affect the Church in various times and places, and it proclaims an answer on various levels of authority depending upon need of the people, but also depending upon the level of exploration which has been given to the issue being questioned. It does not assume all propositions it makes as final and definitive and without possibility of further exploration; rather it proclaims answers knowing that its understanding can develop over time as it continues to explore the questions given to it further.
The level of teaching authority it uses to proclaim something will depend upon the circumstance which made for the declaration. Is there an active movement working against the authority of the Magisterium? If there is, that tends to create the need for a more authoritative declaration. Is there a group of people looking at a non-dogmatic, non-infallible teaching, willing to respect the Church’s teaching and not demanding the Church to overturn its teaching, but rather, engaging how the Church proclaims that teaching and showing why they are personally unconvinced (while willing to adhere to the practice of the Church)? To them, the Magisterium rarely answers with high levels of authority, because it understands that those engaging the Magisterium are doing so with the desire to work with the Church and to develop its understanding of a given issue. As long as they show respect to the authority of the Church and do not declare themselves above it, and they are not denying definitive teachings, the Church is willing to give them leeway: the Church does not want to make us blind followers of authoritarian declarations, but rather, the Church wants us to be active, intelligent discerners of truth. But it does not want people to merely dismiss its teachings, no matter what level of authority it is using: even the lowest level of teaching authority must be shown some level of respect, even if what is declared is disputed (we must remember, such disputes help bring clarification, and sometimes those who engage such a dispute turn out to be correct, as for example, St Thomas Aquinas over the bishop of Paris). Of course, the level of teaching authority being employed determines the level of assent one must have, and the higher the authority used, the more good faith is required of those who doubt a specific declaration (until, of course, there are those declarations which must be assented to, and if one does not, one finds oneself outside of the Church).
Now there are many ways one can break down the different levels of authority, but one which is quite useful is the following, ranked from greatest level of authority to the least: defined dogma, undefined dogma, definitive doctrine, authoritative doctrine, prudential admonition.[5] Dogma is that which must be believed; defined dogma is based upon a definitive declaration of the Church based upon the highest level of authority, while undefined dogmas are those teachings which are accepted and seen as necessary to the Christian faith even if there has been no need to define such teachings. All dogmas are seen as connected to something which has been absolutely revealed by God. Doctrines are derivative; definitive doctrines are, to be sure, authoritative, even if derivative.[6] Prudential admonitions should be listened to and respected, even if there is disagreement.
Now it must be clear, these levels of teaching authority can be seen in various documents; just because a documental authority is higher does not mean what it proclaims is necessarily of higher level of authority. The Catechism, for example, is really a collection of teachings from different levels of teaching authority and just because they were propagated by Pope John Paul II does not mean they all are of the same level of teaching authority. Indeed, it is to be understood that they are not.[7] Thus, while the level of authority a specific document has must be understood, it does not by itself determine the level of authority proclaimed in that document, and does not make all that is said within it of the same level of authority.
What this means is that for the faithful, the Church oversees the proclamation of truth, and the faithful must adhere to that which the Church holds up. But in its explanation of that truth, especially as the Church speculates upon the meaning implied by it, there is room for growth and development. Doctrinal development comes from this. But it must be said, even when we acknowledge that there is room for development, the faithful are expected to show respect to the Church and her authorities. That respect does not mean the faithful need to be intellectually servile. Rather, we are expected to engage the Church between the two extremes mentioned at the beginning of this essay. That, of course, is the most difficult position of all to follow. For it means one is expected to discern much for oneself and not merely rely upon the Church for answers, while on the other hand, it means one must not put oneself above the Church, and realize that truth, as our understanding of it develops, is revealed from the unity of the Church and not the individual. Communio over individualism: that is the way of the Christian.
Footnotes
[1] Peter Bouteneff, Sweeter than Honey: Orthodox Thinking on Dogma and Truth (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006), 27.
[2] To be sure, propositions do have value, but they must be understood as revealing something about conventional truth, not absolute truth. And once they are understood as conventions, this both allows them to be put to proper use but frees them from the absolute claims the rationalist would make of them.
[3] “When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the christian faith,” Unitatis Redintegratio 11 in Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations. Ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NW: Costello Publishing Company, 1996), 511.
[4] Richard Gaillardetz, By What Authority? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 98.
[5] I have combined the work of Francis Sullivan and Richard Gaillardetz here. For Sullivan see, Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (NY: Paulist Press, 1996).
[6] To help understand this distinction, one might want to consider the difference between sacrament (reflecting dogma) and sacramental (reflecting definitive doctrine). Sacraments are directly established by Christ, while sacramentals are established indirectly by Christ through the authority of the Church.
[7] “The individual doctrines that the Catechism affirms has no other authority than that which they already possess,” Cardinal Raztinger quoted in, Sullivan, S.J. Creative Fidelity, 12. This is one of the reasons why many theologians wish the Catechism declared within the Catechism the level of authority which is being employed in each paragraph, so as not to confuse the laity. As it is the Catechism, while good, is tended to be blended together as all equal in authority and value, which is a shame.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In