Theological Responsibility: Beyond the Classical Paradigm

Abstract

AMONG MATTERS of concern cited in Final Report 1 of November L 1985 Extraordinary Synod in Rome was persistence of friction between magisterium and theologians. The document notes that theology is specifically necessary to life of church today... and appreciatively recognizes what has been done by to elaborate documents of Vatican Council II and to help toward their faithful interpretation and fruitful application in postconciliar period. In quite a different tone, however, document continues by expressing regret that theological discussions of our day have sometimes occasioned confusion among faithful... and suggests remedy of communication and a reciprocal dialogue between bishops and theologians in order to insure the building up of faith and its deeper comprehension. The concerns raised here focus on nature of theological responsibility, an issue that continues to preoccupy both magisterium and theologians, though usually in quite different ways. Consideration of this issue has been prominent in years since Vatican II and, unfortunately, has been prompted by actual conflicts between magisterium and such as Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Leonardo Boff, and Charles Curran. One might perceive occasional tension between magisterium and as a struggle to define legitimate boundaries of teaching authority in Church, an issue which, in aftermath of Second Vatican Council, has been of special concern to all parties involved. The fact that Council was in most respects a model of co-operation between magisterium and brought about expectation that good relations between these constituencies would flourish in postconciliar Church. That expectation has not been entirely fulfilled. In following pages I will argue that contemporary conflicts between magisterium and can be better understood, and thereby