April 15, 2012 Brian Lewis, Ballarat, Australia Brian's previous articles
RESPONDING
IN CONSCIENCE TO THE MAGISTERIUM
The
Christian faithful have in the teaching of the Church a rich heritage of moral
wisdom, access to which throws light on the making of decisions of conscience.
In a general sense this is unquestionably true.
Both faith and morals are mediated by the teaching of the Church. But a
couple of clarifications are called for in stating this.
In
the first place, it is well to correct the impression many have that the
teaching of the Church refers to the hierarchy alone, an idea that became
increasingly prevalent following the first Vatican Council and that Vatican II
attempted to correct by making clear that the Church is first and foremost a
community, in which no member has exclusive access to the truth about God and
the mysteries of the faith. Although the bishops in communion with the Pope are
the only official teachers of the
Church, authoritative teaching is not limited to them alone but is tied up with
the nature of the Church as the People of God, formed by the Word of God and
shaped by apostolic Tradition.
The
child's first teachers of faith and moral behaviour in the community of the
Church are its parents, grandparents and other family members, catechetists,
schoolteachers, local clergy, who are charged with the task of forming the child
in the likeness of Christ. For faith to be meaningful as a way of life, the
child must learn what are the genuinely good things in life that must be sought
and valued and chosen in order to become a good person and a Christian formed in
Christ's image.
A
second important point not always realised is that the official teachings of the
Church hierarchy are made at different levels of authority. In matters of faith
the primary object of the magisterium of the Church may be coextensive with
revelation and so call for the 'obedience of faith', as St. Paul says.
Theologians generally agree that a second level of authority is invoked in
regard to doctrines that are indispensable for the maintenance of revelation,
including both the statement of what would necessarily flow from revelation and
the condemnation of propositions that would contradict revelation. But there is
a third category that includes teachings about what has traditionally been
referred to as discipline, that is, practices, customs and ways of living in
keeping with the Gospel. These may be religious in character, such as
sacramental and liturgical practises, or not clearly religious in character,
such as many areas in the field of morality. This level of teaching is made at a
much lower level of authority than the previous two.
The
moral teaching of the Church, which differs from teaching in matters of faith,
also engages three levels of authority. Some teachings tell us about the kind of
persons we should be as followers of Christ called to love as Christ loved are closely
linked with revelation (see 1Cor.13). Because of this link with revelation we
generally accept them without question. We can say that when the magisterium (or
indeed any member of the faithful) highlights or clarifies virtuous attitudes,
it teaches with the authority of revelation itself and this teaching resonates
strongly with the depths of Christian conscience. At a second level stand
doctrines that flow from or are necessaryh to protect the revealed Word of God,
for example, the doctrine of free will or the doctrine of grace. Such teachings
continue to be taught authoritatively by the magisterium and are taken for
granted by the faithful as an integral part of the Church's teaching office.
In
this category of teaching can also be included statements widely taken for
granted by members of the Church and even non-members as characteristic of the
Christian community, for example, that Christians pray together, worship fairly
regularly, marry for life. Such statements describe the very character of the
Christian community and so of its members, who are expected to accept them
freely as the basic tenets of the Christian way of life.
A
third level of the Church's moral teaching is pitched at concrete behaviour, the
area as already said of discipline: practices, customs and life-styles, indeed
all aspects of living. Here there is room for variability and exceptions. This
is the field of what has been called natural morality, which for the most part
Christians can share with all people of good will
Such
teaching about specific human behaviour always occurs in a historical context
and hence, apart from any possible connection with revelation, is time-bound and
subject to change. The guidance of the Holy Spirit does not absolve Church
leaders from the need of quality research and sound ratonal argumentation.
Indeed it could be said that in most areas of natural morality Church
authorities enjoy no more competence than any other intelligent
persons on most issues at this level.
Whereas
the dogmas of faith must be accepted by Catholics who regard themselves as
members of the Church and doctrines are generally judged to be at least
'theologically certain', if not irreformable, the third level of magisterial
teaching about morality is more complex and problematical. What should be the
response of the faithful to this level of official teaching? Vatican II
initially called for 'religious submission of mind and will' (Lumen
Gentium, n.25). This text has
been critically examined by eminent theologians and has been interpreted in the
light of the statement of the Decree on Religious Freedom in 1965:
'In
forming their consciences the Christian faithful should give careful
attention to the sacred and certain teachings of the Church' (Dignitatis
Humanae, n.14).
In
summary it may be accepted that the appropriate response to the ordinary moral
teaching of the Church on the part of the faithful is attentiveness
not obedience, a point not always understood, even by persons in authority. The
appropriate response is an attentiveness and readiness to listen that is born
out of respect for the hierarchical office and the special guidance of the Holy
Spirit. There are cases in which a person's reasons against a particular moral
teaching of the kind we have discussed may be so convincing to that person that
an honest interior assent cannot be given to the teaching. In an optimistic
statement Vatican II said: 'All the faithful, clerical and lay, possess a lawful
freedom of inquiry and thought, and the freedom to express their minds humbly
and courageously about matters in which they enjoy competence' (Gaudium
et Spes, n.62). Sometimes we have no option but to trust the experts. Karl
Rahner offers an analogy from health care. We ordinarily follow the considered
opinion of the doctor not on the basis of his arguments but on his authority,
even though we know he could be wrong. Likewise we may normally have to adopt a
similar attitude both in theory and in practice towards the official teachers of
the Church.
Finally
it should be noted that teachings are not the same as laws. The appropriate
response to laws made by the competent authority, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, in view of the common good is obedience,
but for mature members of the community not a blind
obedience.