Dogmatic definition

by Letters Editor · August 4, 2011

From Brian Gaybba, Grahamstown

The report on my talk (June 22) was of necessity too brief to give the justification of my assertion that the absence of unanimity amongst the faithful regarding a particular belief indicates that it has not yet achieved the status of a dogma. Franko Sokolic (July 20) sees in this a disregard for the criteria of establishing what is or is not a dogma, or de fide.

The issues here are too complex to deal with briefly but let me simply do what he does and appeal to Vatican II�s Lumen Gentium, para 12: �The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One cannot err in matters of belief�it manifests this unerring quality when, �from the bishops down to the last member of the laity�, it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals�.

From this it follows that if that universal agreement is absent then it does not �manifest this unerring quality�.

This does not mean that the belief is false. Nor does it mean that the Church�s magisterium may not teach it. But it does mean that it is not clearly and indisputably one of the Church�s dogmas, the denial of which would be heresy.

There was good reason behind the old Canon Law�s pithy but crucially important assertion: �Nothing is to be regarded as dogmatically defined, unless it is quite clear that such is the case� (Can 1323 #3).

If anything is clear about the teaching of Humanae Vitae on contraception and that women cannot be ordained priests it is this: the recent papal teaching has never itself claimed to be defining a dogma. This does not mean that one could not appeal to tradition to argue that it is part of the deposit of faith. But such appeals are not always easy to justify.

When I was a student, a conservative theologian concluded that the teaching that only men could be ordained was �indisputed��which is very different from de fide. What is or is not a dogma usually becomes crystal clear only when a dispute about a long held belief occurs and a council is convoked to deal with the matter and issues decisions which are clear from the wording to be de fide declarations.

There is a disturbing incongruity in what is happening in the Church these days as regards certain teachings. We are in effect being asked to regard them as dogmas when it is still unclear that they are such both because of the lack of a formal dogmatic definition by council or pope and because there is a clear division amongst the people regarding their rectitude or dogmatic status.

The magisterium can easily sort it out by defining them as dogmas�or openly admitting that they are not. But it has not taken that route and the result is a mess.

In my talk I therefore proposed that the proper way for the pope to serve the Church�s unity in such a situation is to abandon the policy of �thou shalt not question or discuss the truthfulness of such teachings� and enforce the exact opposite: �thou shalt discuss in a responsible and open and prayerful way the issues that are dividing us at the moment on these beliefs�.

If done with genuine acceptance of each other�s sincerity and with as much openness to the Spirit as one can muster, we will arrive at the truth�or rather find ourselves led to it.