Letter
from a Catholic Theologian to All 270
United States Catholic Bishops
By Daniel C. Maguire, Marquette University.
maguired@juno.com
In what may be considered an act of undefeatable
hope, I decided to write to all 270 U.S.
bishops. Beyond a doubt they could be
among the most influential religious leaders
in the nation if only they could get off
what I call the pelvic issues and address,
in prophetic style, the basic biblical
concerns of poverty, justice, and peace
on an imperilled earth.
Even though the bishops are not theologians,
they pontificate on theology and bring
their form of theology into the political
arena, forbidding Communion to pro-choice
politicians but posing for pictures with
war-making presidents and legislators.
The pastoral letter on Peace in 1983 "The
Challenge of Peace," spelled out
the criteria for a "just war."
George Bush's invasion of Iraq violated
all of its criteria, the pope called the
invasion "a defeat for humanity,"
and yet the bishops and most Catholic
theologians and laity stand meek and mute
throughout this disaster. The press then
consider the bishops' statements to be
"Catholic teaching." The press
tend not to understand the difference
between Vatican theology and Catholic
theology---the latter being more broadly
based and more infused with the "wisdom
of the faithful" (sensus fidelilum).
When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae
in 1968, over 600 American theologians
issued a public dissent to that assault
on Catholic consciences, in the spirit
of Jesus in Luke 19:40: "I tell you
if my disciples keep silence, the stones
will shout aloud." Groups like Call
To Action and Voice of the Faithful do
speak out but mostly "my disciples
keep silence." Not wonder in the
next verse, Jesus "wept."
In the original letter to the bishops,
I enclosed two pamphlets, one of same
sex marriage and one on abortion, showing
the variety of theological opinion on
these issues. I urged the bishops to rise
to assume a prophetic ministry on justice,
peace, poverty and ecological issues.
Three bishops answered. All focused on
the two issues on which they are all too
impaled and none spoke to their missing
voices on issues where the Gospels speak
loudly and clearly, especially on the
pro-life issue of war.
For the benefit of non-theologian readers,
I will offer in brackets explanations
of some of the Latin and technical terms
of theology. (I did not offer explanations
in my original letters to the bishops.)
Professor Daniel C. Maguire
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881
June 19, 2006
To the Catholic Bishops:
Given the "great divide" that
exists in the contemporary Church between
bishops and theologians, I think that
communication, even if it leads to little
agreement, is a human good.
In this spirit, I am enclosing short pamphlets
on two topics on which hierarchical teaching
has become impaled, abortion and same-sex
marriage, to the neglect of the needs
of the increasing militarism of our nation,
our neglect of the poor of the world,
racism, sexism, and the wrecking of the
earth's ecology through greed.
Cardinal Mahoney's recent prophetic intervention
on the human rights of immigrants shows
that the authority of Catholic bishops
is welcomed and respected when they speak
out courageously on basic Gospel values.
There are other moral issues on which
auctores scinduntur. [Catholic theologians
are divided on these issues] On those
issues, if you do not wish to use the
hallowed Catholic expression consulas
auctoribus probatis, [check with established
theologians] you could well use the model
of teaching that the American Catholic
bishops used on the life/death issue of
the Vietnam War in November 1966:
"We realize that citizens of all faiths
and of differing political loyalties honestly
differ among themselves over the moral
issue involved in this tragic conflict.
While we do not claim to be able to resolve
these issues authoritatively, in the light
of the facts as they are known to us,
it is reasonable to argue…"
Since there is no infallibly defined position
on either abortion or same-sex unions,
a similar modesty would enhance episcopal
teaching. The Second Vatican Council wisely
said: "Let the layman not imagine
that his pastors are always such experts,
that to every problem which arises, however,
complicated, they can readily give him
a concrete solution, or even that such
is their mission (The Church in the Modern
World, n. 43). It should cause no wonder
that the laity do not take it as obvious
that celibate bishops are necessarily
more reliable "experts" on sexual
and reproductive issues than the laity,
"anointed as [the laity] are by the
holy One"(Constitution on the Church,
n. 12) and experienced as they are in
their grace-filled lives.
This modesty would acknowledge, with the
previous code of Canon Law, that "the
bishops, whether teaching individually
or gathered in particular councils, are
not endowed with infallibility" (Canon
1326). The canon asserts that bishops
are veri doctores seu magistri. [the bishops
are teachers] That teaching ministry would
best be conducted by recognizing that
modesty is called for when one teaches
in areas where infallibility is not an
issue, where the teachers have no privileged
expertise, and where good people from
all faiths reasonably disagree.
Cardinal Dulles made a crucial theological
point, deserving close attention at this
time. Avery Dulles, S.J., in his Presidential
address to The Catholic Theological Society
of America said that the Second Vatican
Council "implicitly taught the legitimacy
and even the value of dissent" ("Presidential
Address: The Theologian and the Magisterium,"
Proceedings of the Catholic Theological
Society of America 31 (1976).
The council, says Dulles, conceded "that
the ordinary magisterium of the Roman
Pontiff had fallen into error, and had
unjustly harmed the careers of loyal and
able theologians." He mentions John
Courtney Murray, Teilhard de Chardin,
Henri de Lubac, and Yves Congar. Dulles
says that certain teachings of the hierarchy
"seem to evade in a calculated way
the findings of modern scholarship. They
are drawn up without broad consultation
with the theological community. Instead,
a few carefully selected theologians are
asked to defend a pre-established position.…"
Dulles aligns himself with those theologians
who do not limit the term "magisterium"
to the hierarchy. He speaks of "two
magisteria-that of the pastors and that
of the theologians." These two magisteria
are "complementary and mutually corrective."
(He neglected the third magisterium, the
sensus fidelium, the experience-fed and
graced wisdom of the faithful.) The theological
magisterium may critique the hierarchical
magisterium. Dulles concludes: "we
shall insist on the right, where we think
it important for the good of the Church,
to urge positions at variance with those
that are presently official...[i.e. taught
by the hierarchy]." These are not
the words of some fringe theologian; these
are the words of a theologian who is now
a cardinal of the Catholic Church and
nothing in his subsequent writings refutes
these basic and broadly accepted assertions.
On the two subjects of these little pamphlets,
we have produced an Oxford University
press book (Sacred Rights, 2003) on the
debated issue of abortion in world religions
and I would be pleased to send you a copy
if you were interested in further discussion.
We will also produce two books, now with
publishers, on the sin of heterosexism.
These books contain chapters from distinguished
scholars in Judaism, Protestant and Catholic
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Taoism, and Confucianism.
Sincerely,
Daniel C. Maguire
Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Office of the Archbishop
July 13, 2006
Professor Daniel C. Maguire
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
Dear Professor Maguire,
As the bishop of the archdiocese where
you reside, I am obliged to reply to your
circular form-letter, sent to the bishops
of the country on June 19, 2006.
The opinions expressed in the two pamphlets
enclosed in that correspondence are totally
at odds with clear Church teaching. Sacred
Scripture, the Magisterium, and Natural
Law are consistent in opposition to abortion
and so-called same-sex marriage.
You speak of your duty to dissent. Well,
at least call it such. To claim that support
for abortion and same-sex "marriage"
is consonant with Catholic moral teaching
is preposterous and disingenuous.
I, too, have a duty: to teach what the
Church clearly believes. Your opinion
on these two matters is contrary to the
faith and morals of the Church.
Faithfully in Christ,
(Signed)
Most Reverend Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of Milwaukee
Professor Daniel C. Maguire
Marquette University
Department of Theology
P.O Box 1881
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
July 18, 2006
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of Milwaukee
Dear Archbishop,
I have received your letter of July 13.
I was pleased that you replied even though
your message was not as gracious or as
pastoral as that of the one other bishop
who replied. Terms like "preposterous"
and "disingenuous" (the usual
code for mendacious) are not the words
of a pastor so much as those of a scold.
Some of my colleagues-too cynically I
believe-said I should take no offense
because the letter was obviously written
not so much for me as for those with whom
you shared it here and abroad. I don't
believe that...not for a minute. I think
that, in your fashion, your intentions
were to help me in matters where you feel
I am mistaken and that you wanted to do
this for the good of the Church. Therefore,
I will continue in the hope that even
from such a caustic opener, some fruitful
dialogue might commence.
Acting on this belief in your good faith,
and in your sense of pastoral mission,
I would be much helped if you would explain
some things for me:
(1) You speak twice of "clear"
Church teaching. To know what is clear
and how clear, Catholic theology developed
a careful criteriology presented, for
example, at the Gregorian University in
the 1951 De Valore Notarum Theologicarum
et de Criteriis ad eas Dignoscendas. "To
teach what the Church clearly believes"
(your words) one must know what nota theologica
attaches to it. [The Church recognized
that not everything is de Fide; most issues
are debateable] The possibilities are:
De fide divina, proxima Fidei, Theologice
certum, Doctrina Catholica, certum, commune
et certum moraliter, communius, communissimum,
probabilius, probabile. Other negative
notes are temeraria, offsensiva piarum
aurium, etc. In other words, not everything
is taught with equal clarity leaving many
things to be debated freely.
It would be helpful to me and to all the
Catholic theologians who agree with me
on the two issues you address to know
which "note" you attach. Do
you believe that the issues you address
should not be debated by theologians at
all? Should theologians who hold the liberal
views on these issues be banned as speakers
at Catholic parishes? (I suppose I know
your answer to that.)
(2) Also, I would be helped to know how
your position on these two theologically
debated topics relates to the condemnation
of "absolute tutiorism" by Pope
Alexander VIII on Dec. 7, 1690. [This
condemnation said that when there are
good reasons supported by reputable scholars,
the most restrictive opinion should not
be enforced.] It would seem you run afoul
of that condemnation thus putting you
into "dissent." Of course, as
Cardinal Dulles said, dissent is not always
bad but is often a service to the Church,
in accord with the maxim "dissent
in and for the Church."
(3) I was disappointed that your reply
to me ignored my concerns about episcopal
leadership and prophetic mission in areas
such as peace, poverty, and ecological
devastation. Let me focus on one question,
peace: In the Pastoral Letter of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, May 3,
1983, "The Challenge of Peace,"
the bishops developed with care the jus
ad bellum and the jus in bello criteria.
It would be quite a stretch to say that
the recent invasion of Iraq complied or
complies with those criteria. Have you
or other bishops called attention to that?
If you approve of that war, do you feel
that the decision for that invasion satisfies
the criteria developed by the U.S. bishops?
If this undeclared war is in violation
of those criteria (which would mean the
killing in this war is murder), should
legislators who support the war be denied
Holy Communion? Should citizens be advised
not to serve?
(4) Also, on debated moral issues, such
as the two you chose to focus on, how
do you value the views of Protestant Christians?
Recognizing that Protestant Christians
differ with many Catholics on dogmatic
issues, the Second Vatican Council said
that "ecumenical dialogue could start
with discussions concerning the application
of the gospel to moral questions."
What weight do you give to Protestant
views on these two issues? If you are,
as you seem, dogmatically certain on these
two issues, could you enter into "ecumenical
dialogue" on those issues? Would
you encourage Catholic theologians to
do so or simply to announce to these Protestants
they are "totally at odds with clear
Church teaching, Sacred Scripture, the
Magisterium, and Natural Law," to
quote you? That would not be a basis for
dialogue.
I await your reply, your courteous reply,
to these queries. [That reply is still
awaited, though I suspect Jesus will return
before it arrives.]
Sincerely yours,
Daniel C. Maguire
Professor
Back to Top
