If there is one thing that the Catholic Church has an abundance of, it’s rules.
Whether it’s the economy or family, the environment or liturgy, you can be assured
that the Church has thought about it and offered both a theological stance and practical directives.
If it relates in any way to our salvation and the Kingdom of God… we’re going to
have something to say about it.
This is not to say, however, that everyone necessarily AGREES on these rules.
Even within the Church, there are those who disagree, even disOBEY, what the Church teaches.
Which brings up some interesting questions: can a Catholic faithfully disagree with the
Church and remain in communion, and if so, where do we draw the line?
This is Catholicism in Focus.
———
While there are many rules and stances in the Catholic Church, it’s also true that
not all of our teachings are created equal.
The centrality and authoritative status of Church teachings differ greatly.
Believing that Jesus is the son of God is kind of more important that a rule to fast
on Fridays…
While all of the teachings of the Church are important to some extent and play a role in
our lives on the way to salvation, they do not all bear the same weight, hold the same
authority, or demand the same level of obedience.
For this reason, the Church speaks of what is called the “hierarchy of truths.”
First officially named in the Decree on Ecumenism at Vatican II, it is a concept that has existed
in the Church’s practice for centuries.
The idea is not to suggest that certain teachings are essential while others are optional, but
rather to differentiate between those teachings that constitute the object of faith—say,
the definition of the Trinity—and those that lead to the way of salvation—say, specific
formulations of transubstantiation.
Unfortunately, there is no section in the catechism specifically naming the categories
or listing the order of such a hierarchy.
Vatican II defined the concept, but, wisely, didn’t fill in all of the details.
That said, theologians like Richard Gaillardetz have produced helpful guides, such as his
book By What Authority, that provide important questions we can ask in evaluating each teaching.
What is the SOURCE of the teaching?
Something from scripture is far more authoritative than say, a private revelation or theological
reflection on current events.
What is the AUTHORITATIVE STATUS of the document suggesting the teaching?
Dogmatic Constitutions bear far more weight than encyclicals or apostolic exhortations;
A pope writing a papal bull is different from him writing a homily.
In what FORM is the teaching being proposed?
Sometimes a teaching uses dogmatic language like, “we solemnly declare,” while others
use more casual language such as “it is fitting.”
What’s the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of the teaching?
In other words, is it attempting to respond to a specific issue for specific people in
a specific time, or is it meant more universally?
And finally, how FREQUENTLY has this teaching been invoked?
Something that has appeared in dozens of official documents is more authoritative than a teaching
proposed once in 2000 years.
It’s in evaluating these questions that theologians like Gaillardetz suggest that
the theological teachings of the Church can be broken down into four main categories of
authority, each with a different appropriate response from believers.
Dogmas, the highest level of teaching, are divinely revealed statements of faith that
communicate God’s saving message of salvation.
These teachings come directly from scripture and deal with the most essential aspects of
our faith, things like the divinity of Christ, resurrection of the body, a belief in the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Because of the centrality of these teachings, they are taught to be irreformable, meaning
that they will never change, and require an assent of faith.
If you can’t believe a dogmatic statement of the Church, you really can’t call yourself
a member of the Church…
This… is heresy.
Beneath these teachings are what are called definitive doctrines, explanations of dogmatic
statements that are necessary for safeguarding and expounding divine revelation.
An example of this sort of teaching would be the determination of the books in the Bible.
While not explicitly defined in Scripture or direct revelation, the Church holds that
these sorts of teachings are irreformable as well, although the believer’s response
is not quite as serious.
Instead of a full assent of faith, the faithful must show firm acceptance of these doctrines,
accepting and holding them to be true.
Publicly denouncing these teachings would cause serious problems, but there seems to
be no evidence in the modern Church of considering denials of this sort as heresy, and withholding
private assent to these teachings would not necessarily remove one from the Church.
Although I don’t recommend it…
Next down the ladder is what is called Authoritative Doctrine, teachings offered as a reflection
on Scripture and tradition in light of contemporary issues, often in the form of concrete moral
imperatives.
Examples would include the prohibition against targeting civilians in an act of war or the
use of in vitro fertilization as a means of conception.
Because these teachings are not directly from scripture or tradition itself and rely heavily
on a particular historical context, these teachings are not irreformable.
Rather, the Church acknowledges the theoretical possibility of error or need for change in
these teachings, as seen in things like its original acceptance of slavery or condemnation
of usury.
For this reason, what is required of the believer in these teachings is not an assent of faith
or firm acceptance, but rather a religious docility of will and intellect.
A what…?
Again, a term proposed by Vatican II, it’s practical definition is often disputed, but
what it comes down to is this: you’ve got to make a genuine effort to accept it.
Gaillardetz suggests that this necessarily involves a critical study of the teaching
to dispel misconceptions, an examination of conscience to ensure that it isn’t being
rejected simply because it would require a conversion of heart, and an evaluation of
one’s approach to authority in general—maybe it’s not the teaching we reject, but the
very idea that the magisterium can authoritatively teach at all.
Thus, as is the case with Definitive Doctrine, failure to assent to Authoritative Doctrine
does not necessarily remove one from the Church.
Finally, we have the lowest wrung of Church teaching, Pastoral applications of Church
Doctrine, Church Discipline, and Prudential Admonitions.
Often presented as applications of the faith, these teaching are the most dependent on circumstance
and are prone to change, making them neither irreformable nor authoritative.
Examples of these teachings include clerical celibacy, rules for fasting, and particular
economic policies that might not be fitting for all times and places.
Given the lack of constancy or authority of these teachings, all that is required of the
believer in this area is what is called conscientious obedience, the insistence that believers trust
the teaching authority of the Church unless it would lead them to sin.
Put another way, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that such teachings
must be given “serious attention and consideration by Catholics as they determine whether their
moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel.”
(Challenge of Peace #10).
If the Church is teaching it, you can’t ignore it.
Take it seriously and follow your shepherd.
Which, is kind of the point to all of this—if this thing we call Church is going to work,
there must be an underlying sense of trust in everything we do.
It is not enough to look merely at the penalties incurred and shoot for the bare minimum to
remain in the Church.
Although one could, technically, disagree with every single authoritative doctrine and
Church discipline without being thrown out of the Church, that doesn’t mean that there
wouldn’t be other consequences.
Any failure of assent, or worse, active DISsent and disobedience, is disruptive to a community.
Simply not getting thrown out can’t be our goal.
Think of it in a more relational sense.
Dogmas are sort of like ultimatums—if you do this, we can’t be friends anymore.
They are ironclad, nonnegotiables that you just don’t mess with.
Don’t steal my stuff.
Don’t cheat on me.
Don’t set my house on fire.
Not everything in a relationship is necessarily phrased as an ultimatum, in itself catastrophic
to the friendship, but that doesn’t mean that everything else can simply be disobeyed.
The simple requests, the smaller things, still matter.
You can’t just go, well, I made a mess in your house, talked about you behind your back,
forgot your birthday, and borrowed your car without asking, but at least I didn’t set
your house on fire!
Still friends?
Probably not.
The same goes for the Church.
Just because the big things are the only ones with drastic penalties doesn’t mean that
nothing else matters.
If we truly believe that the Church is the authentic teaching authority of Christ on
earth, and I mean, really believe that, then we owe it to ourselves, to the community of
believers, to Christ, to take the Church’s teachings seriously.
We may find certain aspects extremely challenging, we may struggle to fully assent to them, but
that does not give us license to outright deny them.
Ask questions, challenge where necessary, but also go out of your way to trust that
Christ might just be at work in the Church.