The Role of the Ordinary Magisterium: On Francis Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity

Abstract

The Thomist 61 (1997): 605-15 THE ROLE OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM: ON FRANCIS SULLIVAN'S CREATIVE FIDELITY LIVIO MELINA Pontificia Universita Lateranense Rome, Italy THERE WAS A TIME, before the Second Vatican Council, when there were manuals of ecclesiology and canon law, and even specific handbooks, that offered sound criteria for determining the "theological notes" relative to the doctrinal affirmations and teachings of the Magisterium. These works clarified the type of assent required on the part of the faithful, the censure foreseen for whoever denied them, and the sin such people incurred. Cartechini, Salaverri, Schmaus, Choupin, to cite only the most authoritative and widespread manuals, offered such criteria, explanations, and examples for identifying, according to the widest variety of nuances, what was "dogma fidei" ("de fide," "de fide catholica" "de fide divina et catholica") "de fide ' ' ecclesiastica definita," "de fide divina," "pro::idma fidei," "theologice certum," "doctrina catholica," "certum," "commune et certum," "moraliter certum," "securum seu- tutum," "communius," "communissimum," "probabilius,'~ "probabile." With these objective points of reference theological inquiry could develop within the limits of tradition and of a consensus among the experts, becoming as complicated as one could imagine, yet 1 Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (New York and Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1996). Pp. 209. $14.95 (paper). ISBN 0-8091-3644-9. This article was translated by Bethany Lane. 605 606 LMOMELINA without running the risk of casting doubt on the structure of Catholic doctrine. Certainly these were different times: theology was confined to scholastic debates, undertaken in Latin among a few specialists; the context of substantial reception of the teachings of the Magisterium and a common philosophical and methodological system offered a solid basis for dialogue and discussion on individual points. Sometimes the deliberation of the theological notes seemed to be an exercise of academic hairsplitting, posing no threat to the faith. There is no need to say how radically the theological context has changed. The disputes have passed from the theology of the school to the doctrine of the Magisterium, from the ecclesiastical academy to the mass media, taking full account of public opinion and the life of the faithful. The hermeneutical perspective first developed in the field of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture has been applied to the interpretation of the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church. The historical awareness of changes in conceptions and in practical orientations urges that what is handed down receive new verification. The demand for autonomy and for scientific scholarship in theological research, making it comparable to any other university discipline, tends to counterpose itself to the very idea of a Magisterium doctrinally binding once and for all. It was in this context-and consequently with excellent reason-that the Council of the Faculty of Theology of the Gregorian University of Rome, quite some time ago, asked Professor Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., to hold for the students who were candidates for the licentiate a course on the fundamental criteria of evaluation and interpretation of magisterial documents. In what way are we to live out today the permanent need of referral to the Magisterium without sacrificing the creativity of theological research? Sullivan's book, which substantially relates lectures given first in Rome and then at Boston College, offers a reply that intends to follow in the footsteps of the manual tradition, while at the same time opening it to present applications of theology, in the manner of Karl Rabner and Avery ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM 607 Dulles and, above all, following the great inspiration of John Henry Cardinal Newman. The essay that has now been offered to the general public is at once invaluable and unfortunately misleading. Its undeniable value derives first of all from the wealth of information and documentation that it contains, a mark of the great competence acquired by the author in long years of research and teaching. The historical perspective of the reading of the sources and the hermeneutical approach undeniably recommends the work and offers valid examples of an interpretative labor. Compared with the radical tendencies unfortunately present today in Catholic theology, the tone appears balanced and sensible. On pages 119-21, citing both...