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.
