The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
May 30, 2006
Prof. Michael F. Hull, New York
The term “theologian,” once somewhat narrowly defined, is now used expansively, perhaps loosely, to describe anyone who opines upon things theological, with little regard for pedigree or proficiency. This usage is incongruent with the Church’s understanding of the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Donum veritatis identifies the theologian’s vocation as inspired by the Holy Spirit within the Church and given “for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7–11).[1] Donum veritatis goes on to say that the theologian is “to pursue in a particular way an ever deepening understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.”[2] Thus, it behooves us to ask, as a means to sharpen our own theological acumen: Who is a theologian? What is the work of a theologian? To be sure, the answers overlap, but addressing them separately helps to clarify our understanding of the theologian and his work.
Who is a theologian? The question is not easily answered because the Church has no specific criteria or certification process per se for theologians, but Donum veritatis gives us a start: the theologian’s vocation is awakened “by the Spirit in the Church.”[3] Prior to the Second Vatican Council, this vocation was awakened principally among clergy (secular and religious), but since the Council many laity (including many religious) have embraced the vocation of the theologian.[4] The flowering of theology since the Council has been in no small part due to the infusion of new voices and perspectives in the Church’s fides quaerens intellectum, as St. Anselm would say it;[5] yet misunderstandings have also arisen as a few of those voices have misrepresented the faith and a few of those perspectives have placed themselves outside Revelation. Just after the Council, Pope Paul VI addressed the newly-formed International Theological Commission, reminding them to be “true disciples and apostles of the faith, within the limits of Revelation and of all that the Church’s Magisterium expressly and authoritatively teaches.”[6] From these words of Paul, we can extrapolate two fundamental criteria for a theologian: first, faith, insofar as the theologian is a disciple and apostle; and second, knowledge, insofar as the theologian is to be acquainted with Revelation and the Magisterium. This is, generally speaking, rather simple, but complexities emerge rapidly in any effort to assess faith and knowledge.
The criterion of faith presumes a practicing Catholic in good standing with the Church. It is a mistake to presume that minimal, nominal, or defunct membership in the Church is sufficient for a theologian. As Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., points out: “Catholics commonly recognize that Catholic theology must always be a reflection on the faith of the Church, practiced within the community of faith with a view to serving and enhancing the spiritual life of that community.”[7] Theologians formed with this perspective in mind exercise a faith that seeks deeper understanding. Therewith, the Holy Spirit finds among the faithful those souls well disposed to the vocation of the theologian. The command of St. Augustine— crede, ut intelligas[8]—gets to the heart of the matter: “Theological science responds to the invitation of truth as it seeks to understand the faith.”[9] For the theologian, there is no substitute for faith and a life lived in Christ and his Church. Unfortunately, there are those who identify themselves as theologians who do not practice the faith. Their identification with the Church rests on the reception of Sacraments at some point in the past, but they do not practice theology with an intention of serving and strengthening the people of God.[10]
St. Thomas Aquinas is careful to point out at the beginning of his Summa Theologiae that Revelation is necessary for man’s salvation and that theology (or “sacred science”) is learned through Revelation. “Although those things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God they must be accepted by faith.”[11] Now since the object of theology is God, of whom only Revelation discloses that which cannot be known by unaided reason, faith is essential to the theological endeavor. Faith, as theology’s foundation, is necessary not only as a means to an end, but also as a proximate end in itself, because theology involves a “certain participation in the knowledge of God and the blessed” as well as a “certain assimilation to divine science insofar as, by the faith which is infused in us, we adhere to the first truth itself for the sake of itself.”[12] Or, to put it another way, the things of God cannot be known apart from God, and God is best known through faith. As Richard of St. Victor encourages us: “Let us hurry from faith to knowledge. Let us endeavor so far as we can to understand what we believe.”[13]
The criterion of knowledge presumes a sound theological education. It is a mistake, on the basis of an academic degree alone, to presume that an individual has a sound theological education. Although a degree in theology demonstrates academic skill, it does not necessarily demonstrate theological expertise vis-à-vis things Catholic. Within the realm of academic degrees one must be cautious. The criterion of knowledge may be met by an academic degree, but not necessarily so. Difficulties present themselves when degrees are used as a measure of theological competence, especially on the basis of religious affiliation alone, since so many universities have lost their religious moorings.[14] Furthermore, university education, often awash in relativism,[15] itself is in crisis today, particularly with the smorgasbord approach to courses of study, and theological education is no exception.[16] It cannot be presumed that a sound theological education is found in Catholic universities, though Pope John Paul II’s Ex corde Ecclesiae has been effective in defining the nature of a Catholic university.[17] And, even if it is more likely that one would find competent theological education in a Catholic university, it cannot be presumed that a Catholic cannot receive a proficient theologian education by other means. That is not to say that universities, Catholic or otherwise, cannot offer a fine education in fields like religious studies, the history of theology, and the plethora of specialty degrees that now constitute the bulk of advanced degrees, but it is to say that such degrees offer in se no special competence in Catholic theology.
It must be remembered that any separation of the academy from the Church does not impugn the Church, but the academy. It is all to clear that so-called “academic freedom” is a chimera in contemporary higher education. The differences in universities has to do with the difference in authorities to whom administrators, professors, and students answer. Every university answers to one public or another, and theological and religious studies faculties are no exception. At truly Catholic universities, such faculties answer to the Church, to the community of faith in which the truths of Revelation are known and studied. At other universities, whether religiously affiliated, government sponsored, or private, the same is true; that is, they answer to some public. Separation of the academy from the Church does not in itself bring any increased liberty; it just mandates a bow to a different public. Other academic subjects notwithstanding, this is especially precarious for theology. Dulles says it well: “If [theology] detaches itself from the Church and makes itself accountable to some other public, such as the state or the academy, it denatures itself as theology.”[18]
So, who is a theologian? In short, a certificate of baptism and a doctorate in theology do not a theologian make—at least not what the Church means when she speaks of a theologian. A theologian is one rooted in the faith and competent to explore Revelation.
What is the work of a theologian? Once again, we take our cue from Donum veritatis, namely, that the theologian seeks a deeper understanding of Scripture and Tradition.[19] Moreover, the theologian “does this in communion with the Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith.”[20]
The pursuit of a deeper understanding of Revelation and the articulation of that understanding is the work of the theologian. Because theology seeks a deeper understanding of higher things, it has rightly for centuries been called the “queen of the sciences.” St. Thomas Aquinas is clear in saying that the study of theology is nobler than that of any other science. Theology, both speculative and practical in nature, is nobler due to its object and its end. Theology surpasses other speculative sciences because it “derives its certitude from the light of the divine knowledge” and deals with things “which by their sublimity transcend human reason”; and because “the purpose of this science, insofar as it is practical is eternal bliss.”[21] Donum veritatis puts it another way: “Theology has importance for the Church in every age so that it can respond to the plan of God ‘who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4).”[22] Thus, the importance of the theologian’s work cannot be overestimated.
It is the theologian’s duty to understand the meaning of Revelation and, therefore, to utilize in theological undertakings those philosophical concepts that lend themselves to “a solid and correct understanding of man, the world, and God.”[23] Moreover, the theologian uses history, the human sciences, and all other fields of study to aid in theological ventures. Yet he does so with due discretion, for Revelation is the ultimate standard of truth.[24] To be sure, the work of theology is greater and wider than the academy; still the lion’s share of theology is carried out within the university setting. This presents both advantages and disadvantages, depending upon the individual universities themselves. Despite any advantages or disadvantages, the key is for the theologian to remember that neither the university on a particular level nor the academy on a general level is his proper collaborator in his vocation. Theology is not something the theologian does alone. The theologian is always in communion with the Church, in particular with her Magisterium.
In the period immediately after the Council, Pope Paul VI expressed great hope that theologians would share in the bishops’ role as expressed in Lumen gentium, no. 25.[25] Paul envisioned a union between theologians and bishops. He envisioned theologians helping the Magisterium, which “requires the technical aid of theologians who, by obeying the appropriate methodological rules, make it possible for the Church’s judgment to mature more readily.”[26] On the one hand, much fruit has been born of the cooperation between theologians and bishops in recent years; on the other hand, there have been a number of difficulties.[27] When theologians teach error in the name of the Church, the Magisterium is obliged to intervene, as it did in two recent cases involving the Reverend Professors Jacques Dupuis, S.J., and Roger Haight, S.J., both with impeccable ecclesiastical academic credentials and positions on pontifical theological faculties.
Cases like theirs call into stark relief the work of the theologian as it is carried out in communion with the Magisterium. They reveal that neither a sacramental pedigree (including Ordination), the holding of pontifical degrees, the holding of chairs of theology in pontifical faculties, nor a combination of all three guarantees the orthodoxy of a theologian’s opinion. The fruits of a theologian’s labors, which may be plentiful and erudite, are subject to the adjudication of the Magisterium of the Church. From a secular standpoint, the disciplining of the aforementioned professors seems harsh, but the secular eye is jaundiced in matters ecclesial. The theologian has an ecclesial vocation. An idealization of the academy as an area of unfettered intellectual investigation, along with the demonization of the Church as oppressive, is not borne out in the reality of ecclesial life. Part and parcel of the vocation of the theologian is to accept the guidance of the Magisterium, for the theologian is still a member of the people of God, who must “submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.”[28] Such is the difference between academics concerned with religious matters and theologians. When the Magisterium authoritatively rules on an issue, theologians “are liberated to concentrate on new and actual questions, bringing to bear the full resources of Catholic wisdom as it has developed over the ages.”[29]
Unfortunately, the liberty afforded to theologians by the Magisterium is not always recognized. Indeed, it is often turned around and mistaken for constraint rather than freedom. Therein is a flawed perception of the Magisterium’s role in theology that has gained much popular ground lately. This perception is well articulated by Luke Timothy Johnson,[30] who maintains that the pontificate of Pope John Paul II was repressive and that the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI is likely to be the same; he writes, “If theologians are loyal as well as critical (as we should always assume until it is absolutely necessary to conclude otherwise), they also understand that their thought and imagination must be in constructive conversation with the Church’s catechists, above all the hierarchy.”[31] Giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt, it would seem that his estimation of the theological acumen of bishops (who are the other catechists?) is not only low, but also out of step with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in Lumen gentium and Dei Verbum. While Johnson is certainly correct in stating that a theologian must be more than a catechist, the same—in fact a great deal more—needs to be noted about the Magisterium. The point that Johnson entirely misses is this: It is possible for theologians to be loyal and critical (as we can assume of Fathers Dupuis and Haight, for example)—and still be wrong. Theologians do not possess the charism of truth that is enjoyed by the Magisterium.
As Donum veritatis explains, “freedom of inquiry is the hallmark of a rational discipline whose object is given by Revelation, handed on and interpreted in the Church under the authority of the Magisterium, and received by faith. These givens have the force of principles. To eliminate them would mean to cease doing theology.”[32] Thus, the theologian has the freedom of inquiry, and in order to be sure that that freedom has fructified into theological truth, the Magisterium is essential. The verity of theological findings, then, is not found in the academy or the university, but in the Church. The theologian must ever remember that his speculations, when not confirmed by the Church, remain that: mere speculations. They are not catechesis and should not be presented as such; nor are they to be paraded around as if for a popular affirmation, especially when they involve controversial matters that are liable to bring about undue attention and distortion.
So, what is the work of a theologian? In short, it is an arduous attempt to plumb the mysteries of Revelation and to assist the Church, through the Magisterium, in understanding the truth more profoundly so that the faith can be lived more fervently.
In our own day, the pressing need for theological vitality is acute. We have today perhaps the most educated laity in the Church’s history. But this highly learned laity suffers a paucity of sound theology. The catechetical breakdown in the wake of the Second Vatican Council has left us with a laity in need theological insight to deal with the errors of our age. This is also true of priestly formation. Many seminary courses of study have in recent days given insufficient attention to the “queen of the sciences.” The result is a clergy with less solid philosophical and theological grounding than their pre-Conciliar forbears. In a nutshell, many Catholics—clerical and lay—may know many more things today than they did forty or so years ago, but they may not know the faith any better. Hence, our need for more theologians—clerical and lay—to live the life of faith and to aid in a deeper understanding of God’s Revelation.
[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum veritatis. Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (May 24, 1990), nos. 5 and 6.
[2] Ibid., no. 6.
[3] Ibid.
[4] For more on this, see Mary Ann Donovan, “The Vocation of the Theologian,” Theological Studies 65 (2004): 3–22.
[5] St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, proem.
[6] Pope Paul VI, “The Theologian’s Vocation,” The Pope Speaks 18 (1973): 271–74, no. 6. This was Paul’s address to the first plenary session of the International Theological Commission (October 11, 1973) after its foundation in 1969.
[7] Avery Dulles, “Prospects for Seminary Theology: Centennial Academic Convocational Address at St. Joseph’s Seminary,” Dunwoodie Review 20 (1997): 3.
[8] St. Augustine, Sermo 43, 7, 9.
[9] CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 6.
[10] Ideally, all Catholics engaged in theology would request the mandatum, make the Profession of Faith, and take the Oath of Fidelity as prescribed in canon law, but the law does not require this of all. See the Code of Canon Law, canons 812 and 833. See also, Pope John Paul II, Ad tuendam fidem (May 28, 1998); and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the “Professio Fidei” (June 29, 1998).
[11] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 1, ad. 1.
[12] Idem, Exposition of Boethius’ “De Trinitate” 2, 2.
[13] Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate, prologue.
[14] For a general treatment of the lost religious moorings of universities, see James T. Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).
[15] Perhaps it is the contemporary university more than any other institution that manifests the danger of relativism spoken of by Pope Benedict XVI: “Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be ‘tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine’ [cf. Eph 4:14] seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Homily at the Missa pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice [April 18, 2005]).
[16] For more on the general crisis, see Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987); and David L. Kirp, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).
[17] Pope John Paul II, Ex corde Ecclesiae. Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities (May 15, 1990). See also United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Application of “Ex corde Ecclesiae” for the United States (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000); and idem, Guidelines concerning the Academic Mandatum in Catholic Universities (Canon 812) (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001).
[18] Dulles, “Prospects for Seminary Theology,” 3.
[19] CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 6.
[20] Ibid.
[21] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 5.
[22] CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 1.
[23] Optatum totius, no. 15; cf. CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 10.
[24] Cf. CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 10.
[25] Paul VI, “The Theologian’s Vocation,” nos. 4–6.
[26] Ibid., no. 4; cf. Dei Verbum, no.
12.
[27] Such difficulties have prompted much literature. For example, see the essays in Leo J. O’Donovan, ed., Cooperation Between Theologians and the Ecclesiastical Magisterium: A Report of the Joint Committee of the Canon Law Society of America and the Catholic Theological Society of America (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1982).
[28] Lumen gentium, no. 25.
[29] Avery Dulles, “Criteria of Catholic Theology,” Communio 22 (1995): 313.
[30] Luke Timothy Johnson, primarily known as a biblical scholar, is a Catholic (a former Benedictine priest), who holds a chair and teaches at Emory University, a Protestant school. Johnson is a academic and popular author with over twenty books in print and hundreds of published articles.
[31] Luke Timothy Johnson, “After the Big Chill: Intellectual Freedom and Catholic Theologians,” Commonweal 133 (January 27, 2006): 14.
[32] CDF, Donum veritatis, no. 12.