Determining the Content and Degree of Authority of Church Teachings

Abstract

The Thomist 72 (2008): 371-407 DETERMINING THE CONTENT AND DEGREE OF AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHINGS ]OHNR. T. LAMONT Catholic Institute ofSydney Strathfield, NSW, Australia THE TEACHING OF THE Second Vatican Council on religious liberty in its declaration Dignitatis humanae has been a subject of bitter disagreement ever since the promulgation of that declaration. Presented by some as one of the council's main achievements, it has been condemned by others as a departure from the past teaching of the Church. Most seriously, perhaps, it has been celebrated as being both these things, and as thereby establishing that it is possible for the Church to change her teachings, however authoritative, in the light of a better understanding of reality. There are two issues involved in this disagreement: the question of the content of the document's teachings, and the question of the level of authority of these teachings. These questions turn upon the more general issues of the nature of the principles to be used in determining the content and authority of Church teachings. These general issues are the topic of longstanding disputes in Catholic theology, disputes that are at least as important as those on religious freedom itself. This paper will attempt to resolve these disputes, partly as a preliminary to considering the issue of religious liberty, and partly on account of their intrinsic interest. It will not go on to apply its conclusions to Church teaching on religious liberty because of space limitations; this task will be undertaken in subsequent publications. However, the consideration of positions on the interpretation of church 371 372 JOHN R. T. LAMONT teachings and the consideration of Dignitatis Humanae are not entirely independent tasks. The debates on both these issues emerge from a common theological and ecclesiastical history, and the exposition of this history that is necessary for a consideration of interpretation of Church teachings will prove essential for an understanding of Dignitatis humanae. None of the teachings of Dignitatis humanae are infallible pronouncements that of themselves demand the assent of faith. This is the case with all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, since that council did not make any dogmatic definitions.1 Dignitatis humanae thus raises the particular issue of the level of authority of noninfallible Church teachings. It is really only for this category of Church teaching that the question of level of authority arises in an important way, since infallible teachings by their nature have the highest level of authority, an authority that excludes rejection or doubt on the part of those who profess the Catholic faith. For theology, the question with respect to infallible teachings is not properly speaking their level of authority, but the means of identifying them. The question of how to identify infallible teachings has been fairly thoroughly discussed, and has in fact been the main focus of theological disputes about the authority of Church teachings. These disputes have generally been asking, what level of authority-fallible or 1 This was asserted by Paul VI, in his discourse closing the council on 7 December 1965. Umberto Betti claimed an authority for the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium that virtually reached the level of infallible teaching (Umberto Betti, "Qualification theologique de la Constitution," L'Eglise de Vatican II, vol. 2, Commentaires, ed. Y. Congar [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1967]). This claim was contested by J. Ratzinger (J. Ratzinger, "Announcements and Prefatory Notes of Explanation," in Commentary on the Documents ofVatican II, vol. 1, ed. H. Vorgrimler [NewYork: Herder and Herder, 1967]). Ratzinger, in describing Betti as taking a view that "raises most of the Council's declarations practically (though not technically) to the status of dogmas" (ibid., 299), ignores the fact that Betti bases his evaluation of the degree of authority of Lumen gentium principally on the prefix "dogmatic" that is applied to it: "Avant tout, ii s'agit d'une Constitution dogmatique. Ce qui importe, ce n'est pas la denomination de Constitution - qui aurait pu aussi bien etre remplacee par d'autres, comme Decret, Bulle, etc., mais la qualification de 'dogmatique'. Celle-ci indique que le magistere universe! a pour tache comme tel de proposer la doctrine contenue clans la Constitution," (Betti, "Qualification theologique...