Disagreement With Fallible Magisterium

[Slappo]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION

DONUM VERITATIS

ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION
OF THE THEOLOGIAN

[quote]24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. [b]It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or [u]even the contents of magisterial interventions.[/u][/b] Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)[/quote]

The contents of a magisterial intervention would be the theological ruling that is given.

And to give it context here is 23.

[spoiler]23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene...[/spoiler]

Link to Vatican website to find Donum Veritatis: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Edited September 9, 2010 by Slappo

[dUSt]

Slappo, thank you for your stellar research. You found what I was looking for!

From the same document:

[b]27.[/b] Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, [b]the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them. [/b] ...

[b]30.[/b] If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

[size="5"][b]In cases like these, the theologian should [color="#8B0000"]avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority[/color], for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth. [/b][/size]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

-----

Again, thank you for your efforts.

[Nihil Obstat]

I apologize for posting in a thread that you locked, but I just want to clarify a little bit.

30. does indeed say "In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth."
We have to make sure we're checking what "cases like these" refers to. We're not dealing with the same section that Slappo quoted. The immediately preceding passages in 28, 29 and 30 present the cases to which we are referring:

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of [b]the theologian who might have serious difficulties[/b], for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, [b]in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching[/b].

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.


Non-irreformable would be infallible teachings. This is what we're referring to in the latter part of section 30.

So yea, just clarification. Knowledge is power, yea? Again, I apologize for my presumption in posting on a thread you locked. I won't make a habit of it.

[dUSt]

Thank you Nihil. Slappo's post was in response to my rule about publicly disagreeing with the pope. The rule is not based on disagreeing with the pope. The rule is based on [b]PUBLICLY[/b] disagreeing with the pope. His post was irrelevant to my rule because it only addresses private disagreements between the theologian and the hierarchy [i](which has nothing to do with my new rule)[/i]. Slappo's post did [b]not [/b]address [b]PUBLICLY[/b] disagreeing.

Therefore, using the same document, I found the part that addresses what is actually [b]relevent[/b] to my rule--which is, the PUBLICLY disagreeing part.

I think it is relevent enough to post again.

[size="5"][b]In cases like these, the theologian should [color="#8B0000"]avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority[/color], for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth. [/b][/size]

I trust that you will allow members to read the document in it's full entirety and decide for themselves, as the link is posted above.