flower, J erenow

3o fre>acA>ta P&sfoi

A®£d&/h
SERVITE FATHERS
ASSUMPTION CHURCH
323 WEST ILLINOIS STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 00610

TO PREACH THE GOSPEL:

THE FIRST DUTY OF THE BISHOP

THEOLOGY AND THE

HUMAN SCIENCES:

THEOLOGY AND CONTEMPLATION

cr-oviTE
FATHERS

szsss

Two Addresses of

MOST REVEREND JEROME HAMER

Secretary

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith





TO PREACH THE GOSPEL:

THE FIRST DUTY OF THE BISHOP

REFLECTIONS ON THE

EPISCOPAL MAGISTERIUM

November 12, 1978

THEOLOGY AND THE

HUMAN SCIENCES:

THEOLOGY AND CONTEMPLATION

November 13, 1978

Two Addresses of

MOST REVEREND JEROME HAMER

Secretary

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

1979

Publications Office

UNITED STATES CATHDLIE EONFERENEE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.E. 20005



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/topreachgospelfiOOhame

Dcsc"i!.“cd



TO PREACH THE GOSPEL:

THE FIRST DUTY OF THE BISHOP

REFLECTIONS ON THE

EPISCOPAL MAGISTERIUM

“Among the more important duties of bishops, that of preach-

ing the Gospel has pride of place” (LG, 25). These words of the

Council echo the question that each of us was asked at the begin-

ning of our episcopal ordination: “Will you preach the Gospel

faithfully and unceasingly?” (fideliter et indesineter)

That is the subject of our talk. When I was a young teacher of

theology, I dreamed of writing a theology of preaching one day.

It is very likely that I will take this project to my grave. In any

case such is not my intention today. I would like to propose to

you quite simply, in a personal capacity, some reflections on the

episcopal ministry of preaching. I am relying on the questions you

will ask me after this lecture and on your remarks to tackle

certain points which will not be dealt with directly in this paper.

Address to Bishops of USA

WASHINGTON

November 12, 1978

1



I

The Bishops

Evangelizing Office of the People of God

To preach the Gospel is to announce to everyone, Christians

and non-Christians, God’s plan to save all men in Jesus Christ, that

is, to give them a share in those divine treasures which totally

transcend the understanding of the human mind (cf. DV, 6).

The office of proclaiming the Gospel concerns the whole people

of God. “The Holy people of God, the dogmatic Constitution on

the Church teaches, shares also in Christ’s prophetic office. It

spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by a life of

faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the

fruit of lips praising His name” (LG, 12).

This prophetic or evangelizing office of the People of God—that
is the Church— is based on the presence in it of the Spirit of God
who guarantees its indefectibility in the truth of faith. “The whole

body of the faithful
(universitas fidelium) who have an anointing

that comes from the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn.2:20 and 27) cannot err in

matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural

appreciation of the faith
(
sensus fidei) of the whole people, when,

“from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a

universal consent in matters of faith and morals” (LG, 12).

This analysis of the
“
sensus fidei ” of the Christian people is

important in order to avoid reducing this supernatural reality to

sociological categories. The
“
sensus fidei” is not the same thing

as public opinion. It cannot be the object of Gallup polls. A group,

however numerous it may be in the Church, can never claim for

itself the guarantee given by the
“
sensus fidei ”, for a group can

always be mistaken and the past gives us example of this. Nor

is the
“
sensus fidei ” concerned with laymen as opposed to bish-

ops.

The
“
sensus fidei” is the work of grace, of this assistance that

the Holy Spirit grants to universitas fidelium, and it is manifested

2



in the unanimis pastorum ac fidelium consensio, to use the

expression of the great theologian of last century, Giovanni

Perrone. Laymen are, therefore, at the side of their bishops and

united with them. It is not a question of a confrontation. 1

Diversity of Tasks

In a Church that is wholly evangelizing, there is a diversity of

tasks. The Holy Spirit who ensures that the Church will remain in

truth, also distributes among the faithful of every rank special

graces by which “he makes them fit and ready to undertake

various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the

Church” (LG, 12).

It is a question here of charisms, that is, of gifts of divine

generosity which are given, in the first place, not for the benefit

of the one who receives them, but in favor of the whole community

of the faithful.

Let us take care here not to oppose charisms and ministries,

as is sometimes done; nothing would be more contrary to St.

Paul’s thought. The apostle enumerates a great many of these

spiritual gifts and we have every reason to believe that his enumer-

ations are not complete. Certain gifts are of a transitory or even

exceptional character such as the gift of miracles or that of

speaking in tongues, but others are permanent by nature, they

are public, regular offices, which are entrusted by the imposition

of hands and prayer. Among these institutional ministries, char-

isms and gifts of the Spirit, as much and even more than the most

miraculous gifts, is the episcopate. It is through this ministry

that the divine mission entrusted by Christ to the apostles and

destined to last until the end of time, is continued in the Church

(cf. LG, 20).

The Ministry of the Bishop

What is the role of the episcopate in an evangelizing Church?

The apostolic exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi sums up the

thought of the Church on this point: “In union with the Successor

of Peter, the Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles, receive

through the power of their episcopal ordination the authority to

teach the revealed truth in the Church. They are teachers of the

faith” (EN, 68).

This formulation highlights the teaching of Vatican II on the

sacramentality of the episcopate.

3



1. It is by virtue of his ordination that the bishop proclaims the

Gospel. “The holy synod teaches that the fullness of the sacrament

of Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration (. . .) Now, epis-

copal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying,

the duty also of teaching and ruling. . . .” (LG, 21). The office

(munus) of teaching—which is also “the sure gift of truth” 2—is
therefore a consequence, an effect of the sacrament received, and

is accompanied by corresponding sacramental graces.

2. It is in union with the Successor of Peter that he exercises

this office. The conciliar text which I have just quoted continues, in

fact, in the following way: “which (the duties of teaching and

ruling), however, of their very nature can be exercised only in hier-

archical communion with the head and members of the college.”

“Hierarchical communion” is a technical expression which occurs

more than once in Vatican II. Its precise meaning was indicated in

the Nota praevia added to Lumen Gentium. “Communion is an

idea which was held in high honor by the ancient Church (as it is

even today, especially in the East). It is understood, however, not

of a certain vague feeling, but of an organic reality which demands

a juridical form, and is simultaneously animated by charity” (NP,

2).

It is in the framework of hierarchical communion that a given

diocese is assigned to a bishop, and it is also in accordance with

the organic structure of this communion that this bishop will exer-

cise his teaching office.

In this connection, let us recall that “in matters of faith and

morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful

are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent

of soul” (LG, 25). But this religious assent of will and intelligence

presupposes that the bishop’s teaching is carried out “in com-

munion with the Roman Pontiff”, in other words, within hier-

archical communion and in accordance with its norm.

3. When it says that episcopal consecration confers the three

tasks of sanctifying, teaching and governing, the Council speaks

of three distinct but not separate tasks. It is a question, in fact, of

three aspects of the one office of the pastor, the successor of the

apostles. Each of these tasks presupposes the other two. As

regards his teaching task, the bishop is not only the one who

instructs but who leads; his word is not only truth, it is the way, it

4



marks out a path, for the bishop is the head of the flock which he

governs in order to lead it to meet the Lord. His teaching is also

sanctifying (the Council says deliberately that the bishop is a

spiritual guide) 3
,
through the specific dynamism of conversion and

deepening of religious life, he gathers and constitutes the Christian

community which reaches its culminating point in the celebration

of the Holy Eucharist (cf. SC, 41)
4

.

4. Episcopal consecration confers “tasks” (munera), so it is

not a question of mere capacities or mere qualifications. He who

receives a task must carry it out. A bishop who has received the

task of teaching cannot be silent. He must evangelize, he must tell

and recall Christ’s? truth. Paul’s words are applied to him too:

“If I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For

necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel.”

(I Cor. 9:16).

5



II

The Bishop

and His Collaborators

Teacher of Doctrine and Promoter of Collaboration

It is particularly as teacher of doctrine (doctrinae magister)

that the bishop presides in God’s name and stead over the flock

whose pastor he is (cf. LG, 20). A teacher of doctrine, the bishop

is, therefore, a judge of faith. He exercises his office, in fact, not

only by proclaiming the Gospel entrusted to the Church, but by

identifying it and recognizing it.

Far from absorbing other charisms, the bishop supports them,

promotes them and coordinates them. In a wholly evangelizing

Church—and to the very extent to which evangelizing fervor de-
velops in the diocese—the bishop will find not only among priests
and deacons but also among religious men and women and in the

laity, the multiform and specialized collaboration that he needs
5

.

I know that you are particularly expecting me to deal with collab-

oration between the bishop and the theologian. Before that, how-

ever, it seems to me useful to recall two conditions of all collabora-

tion in pastoral matters.

(1) Collaboration is greatly facilitated by dialogue.
The latter

was recommended by the Council to all those who make up the

People of God (GS, 92), with a rightful part given to laymen

especially when it is a question of seeking with them the best forms

for their apostolate (cf. AA, 25). It is clear, however, that the

bishop’s dialogue with his priests has a privileged character when

it is a question of the apostolate (cf. CD, 28). In fact those who

have received priestly ordination participate with the bishop, al-

though in a different degree, in the one priesthood and the one

ministry of Christ. For that reason, the bishop will see in them

“indispensable counsellors” (cf. PO, 7).

The dialogue is not in any way a dilution of authority or a trans-

6



fer of responsibility: it is up to the bishop to make decisions.
But

it makes it possible to use to the best advantage the
contribution

of each one to the common work. Furthermore, in an age
of in-

security such as ours, in which the cultural upheaval
may well

bring about ill-considered initiatives in some people, it is
calcu-

lated to ensure serenity, and to create a climate of pastoral
trust,

which is indispensable to live the mystery of the Church.

(2) Collaboration presupposes
spiritual preparation. Docility

of minds has its roots in the readiness of hearts. Collaboration
in

pastoral matters—and this holds good particularly in the doctrinal
field

—

mu st be developed in an atmosphere of living faith, spirit

of prayer and great humility. It will be up to the bishop to form

spiritually those whom he associates most closety with his work,

never forgetting that in him the pastor and the teacher of doctrine

are inseparable from the master of spiritual life.

With the same humility the bishop will receive advice that he is

given for a better exercise of his task, and he will continue to

deepen his knowledge, especially in the doctrinal field; for the

assistance that the Spirit grants him does not dispense him from

having recourse to the usual means to distinguish true faith from

that which is false. For the bishops as for everyone, “it is by

examining the Scriptures, in the light of the whole of tradition, in

full particpation in the life of the whole body, with the prayer and

crucifying ascesis that this calls for, that truth is discovered, even

if it is true (...) that, having special responsibilities in this

connection, they can also expect special graces.”
6

The Bishop and the Theologian

After having recalled some conditions for any dialogue in the

Church, we can tackle the examination of the ones which concern

more particularly the relations between the bishop and the theolo-

gian. For these relations to be trustful, in spite of tensions, which

are always possible, they will be based on a clear view of the

respective roles and responsibilities. Without envisaging the ques-

tion as a whole here, we would like to draw attention to certain

aspects that are more relevant today.

Theology is a science. It is in particular the place and the instru-

ment of a dialogue, at the scientific level, between the faith of

the Church and the historical cultures in which this faith must be

lived. Among the requirements of the scientific method, there is

7



that of a certain freedom of movement, with the possibility of

putting forward new hypotheses of which some are good and
others may be rash or even mistaken: that is a risk inherent in
research. That is why the science of theology is addressed directly

to the circles of those who collectively have the mission of causing
this research to progress.

The bishop, charged with proclaiming the Gospel, addresses

the whole community of believers to communicate to it the sub-

stance of the Christian message, that is, those spiritual treasures

for which one can live and die, those essential truths the certainty

of which goes beyond all the intellectual capacities of any man and
are guaranteed by the authority of Jesus and that of the Church

which He founded.

To proclaim the Gospel, the bishop will take into account the

contribution of contemporary theologians, for the message of faith

which he expresses is not unrelated to temporal matters but is

addressed to men marked by a given historical situation and
culture. The theologian, on his side, finds in the profession of faith

of the Church the necessary point of reference of his scientific

activity. A theologian is above all a believer. Without faith, the

subject of his science escapes him. His research, therefore, needs

to be confronted and kept in harmony with the heritage of faith

which the episcopate preserves and hands down 7 . In this way it

will be in conformity with the Gospel, “the source of all salutary

truth and of all moral rules" (DS, 1501).

These overall views invite us to go into some more particular

considerations. In the first place the bishop’s relations with theolo-

gians will be inspired by gratitude. To justify the latter, without

going very far back in the past, allow me to remind you of the work
carried out by theologians during the Council, their contribution

to the various interconfessional dialogues, the assistance they

bring to episcopal conferences, the documents produced by the

International Commission of Theology, the advice that consultants

give the different Roman Congregations and particularly the Con-

gregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Theologians generally do

all this over and above University work which is already demanding

in itself.

Let us recognize also that the dialogue should not be an excep-

tional thing. If bishops and theologians acquire the habit of work-

ing together, collaboration will be more effective when an important

8



problem suddenly crops up. The trust created will make it pos-

sible to overcome obstacles more easily. This presupposes, of

course, that theological work should be strongly stimulated and

that there should be no hesitation over the investments necessary

to form theologians in the best conditions possible.

I know that some bishops are afraid to open a dialogue with

their theologians because they let themselves be impressed by

their learning and also by a language that is sometimes esoteric.

While hoping that the bishop’s theological culture will be as broad

and as up-to-date as possible and while noting that the best theolo-

gians are not the ones who are most difficult to understand, it

should be remembered that it is in the name of the Church’s Creed

that the bishop will interpellate the theologian and that he will

enter the dialogue in this capacity. It is a strong position, founded

on rock.

Theologians, on their side, will take care not to identify their

hypotheses with the faith of the Church. Furthermore, they will

propose to the faithful only those that have first passed the test

of a strict verification. Allow me to recall to you here the words of

Paul VI to a group of bishops: “Respect for the Magisterium is a

constitutent element of theological methods. And also respect for

the People of God: the latter has the right not to be upset incon-

siderately by risky hypotheses or stands, which it is not competent

to judge or which are likely to be simplified or manipulated by

movements or opinion” 8 .

It is also necessary to envisage a situation in which a theolo-

gian considers himself unable, for reasons which he deems certain,

to give his assent to a teaching of the ordinary noninfall ible magis-

terium. What is his duty then? In the first place he will not replace

the magisterium by intervening directly among the Christian com-

munity; he can continue his research, using for that purpose all the

resources of the scientific method characteristic of theology; if,

after having made all the efforts necessary to understand the teach-

ing of the magisterium and agree with it, his personal position

remains unchanged, after making sure that his step is inspired by

the desire to contribute to the good of the Church, he can intervene

with the competent doctrinal authority to put forward his reasons.

A direct appeal to public opinion to contradict a clear teaching

of the magisterium, using for this purpose the resources of the

press and television, is an act that no theology can justify. The

9



theologians who, under different circumstances, have not hesitated

to do so, have taken a fearful responsibility upon themselves.

If so many minds are confused and so many consciences are per-

plexed in the Church today, it is partly owing to initiatives of this

kind.

On his side, the bishop will never lose sight of his specific role

and the norms imposed on him. The religious assent of intelligence

and will (cf. LG, 25) that the faithful owe to the authentic teaching

of their own bishop (teaching in Christ's name, in the area of faith

and morals, in communion with the head of the Church), cannot

be expected, far less demanded, for the free opinions that this

same bishop would like to propose. This distinction must be made

clearly. Furthermore, pastoral prudence requires that the bishop

should be extremely discreet in the public expression of his per-

sonal options in order to avoid a confusion from which his authen-

tic teaching, the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation, might

suffer in consequence.

10



Ill

In Hierarchical Communion

The Supreme Pastor and His Roman Auxiliaries

The bishop exercises his office as preacher of the Gospel in the

framework of the universal Church. We have already seen that

hierarchical communion is the essential condition for the exercise

of the task of teaching (LG, 21). This same hierarchical com-

munion is the condition of membership of the episcopal college

(LG, 22).

The successor of Peter is the principle and the perpetual and

visible foundation (LG, 23) of this collegial unity, by virtue of

divine right. Of course, in the concrete and daily exercise of this

office, in a Church which has nearly 3,500 bishops and over 700

million faithful, the supreme pastor needs a certain number of

collaborators and special institutions, about which it is only right

that we should say a word here. It is through the Roman Curia,

composed of Congregations, courts, offices and secretariats, that

the Sovereign Pontiff habitually deals with the affairs of the univer-

sal Church (Regimini Ecclesiae, art. 1). These institutions, which

clearly have ecclesiastical law status, are the present-day his-

torical form of an assistance which the Head of the Church will

always need. Their authority is that conferred on them by the one

whom they serve. They are the development of the collaboration

that the “presbyterium” ensured the bishop of Rome. L. Boyer

describes their nature and operation as follows: “The cardinals

who belong to them, even if they are only priests (or even mere

deacons), receive from the Pope a power of decision that partici-

pates in his own for matters which concern more or less closely

the unity of the Catholic Church, although their decisions are

subject to his subsequent confirmation. Moreover these decisions

are reached only after the matter has been examined by con-

sultants, most of whom are simple priests, who are called, before

small groups or at plenary sessions, in writing or orally, to give,

motivate and discuss their opinions” 9 .

11



Respect for the Particular Church

A bishop united with the Pope does not need to cross the bound-

aries of his diocese to put himself in the service of universal com-

munion. Through the apostolic work which is specifically his, in

his particular Church, by bringing new disciples to Christ, by

preaching the faith, by causing its influence to spread, by picking

out from the treasures of Revelation the old and the new, by

eliminating errors which threaten the flock (LG, 25), the bishop

takes his place in the “ordinary magisterium of the whole Church

scattered over the earth” 10 . He puts at the disposal of his people

the heritage of the universal Church, but he also causes it to

fructify since he proposes the Christian doctrine, while meeting

the difficulties and the questions of the people entrusted to him,

and sheds light in this way on the different virtualities of the

Gospel.

Successors of the apostles, the bishops, set up by the Holy

Spirit, feed and govern the flock entrusted to each of them as true

pastors. The first Vatican Council, recalling how much “this power

is affirmed, strengthened and defended by the supreme and uni-

versal pastor”, opportunity quotes a fine passage from St. Gregory

the Great: “My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My

honor is the solid strength of my brothers. When everyone is paid

the honor due to him, then I am honored”. (DS, 3061).

Personally, I believe that the Holy See takes care to make its

practice conform with these great guidelines. To speak only of

the organism I know best, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine

of the Faith, it intervenes only where the action of the local bishop

is impossible; or when the problem has taken on an extension that

goes beyond the limits of a diocese, often reaching international

dimensions (think, for example, of the books translated simulta-

neously into several languages); or else at the request of a bishop

who, owing to the circumstances, needs to be supported by a

higher authority. In any case, collaboration with the bishops (and

the episcopal conferences) belongs to the ordinary methods of the

Congregation. It often refers to a local authority a question that

has been laid before it directly. In the case that the Congregation

alone is able to act, it takes care as far as possible to consult the

bishops more especially concerned. Certainly, the Congregation,

by virtue of its constitution, has the right to intervene always and

12



everywhere, but why should it do so when, in a local situation, the

local pastor can act effectively?

The Synod. The Visit
4<

ad limina”

Relations between the bishops and the Holy See take on dif-

ferent forms. In addition to the ordinary correspondence and other

forms of personal contacts, mention should be made of the visit

“ad limina” according to which every bishop is bound to go to

Rome at set dates to venerate the tombs of the apostles and to re-

port to the Sovereign Pontiff the situation of the diocese entrusted

to him (cf. Ad Romanam Ecclesiam, 29.6.1975). Paul VI—whose
example was followed by John Paul I during his too short pon-

tificate—gave great importance to the visit “ad limina” which was
often for him an occasion for precise pastoral interventions.

A privileged form of these relations with Rome is constituted

by the Synod. By means of this, bishops chosen in the different

regions of the world carry out a mission of information and advice

to the Supreme Pastor, with the purpose of facilitating a closer

collaboration and a concordance of views on the essential points

of doctrine and on the modalities of the life of the Church (cf.

Apostolica sollicitudo, 15.9.1965).

The Doctrinal Documents

The various documents emanating from the Holy See also con-

tribute to universal communion. Some are directly acts of the Holy

Father, others come from the departments of the Roman Curia.

Some are doctrinal in character; others belong to the field of dis-

cipline; others again are mixed, such as, for example, liturgical

documents which concern both doctrine and discipline.

What attitude should be assumed with regard to these docu-

ments? That will depend each time on the nature of the authority

of the document in question. Disciplinary documents which form-

ulate precepts appeal to our obedience. It is worth noting, however,

that not all the documents necessarily involve new regulations.

Thus the recent text on “Relations between bishops and religious”

(Mutuae relationes, 14.5.1978), published jointly by the two com-

petent Congregations, bears the characteristic title of “Directives”.

It presupposes the juridical regulations already applied and does

not depart in any way from previous documents.

13



For the subject with which we are dealing, the preaching of the

Gospel, it is the doctrinal documents that concern us in the first

place. In this connection, it is important to recall that the authority

of the ecclesiastical magisterium is involved in different degrees

in the acts emanating from it. It is always necessary to study the

intentions of the authority which expresses itself. Sometimes the

latter teaches formally (in an infallible way, or merely authenti-

cally); and sometimes it directs, recommends, recalls, informs, ex-

plains. In view of the necessary correspondence between the au-

thority of the Magisterium and the docility expected of the faithful,

there will therefore be different degrees also in the adherence of

the latter.

I would like to speak to you here of the doctrinal documents

emanating from the Roman Congregations, for it is a subject with

which authors deal little, and which is consequently less well

known. When one speaks of doctrinal documents of the Congrega-

tions, it is generally a question of those of the Congregation for

the Doctrine of the Faith. By virture of its constitution, this Con-

gregation has the task of promoting and protecting the doctrine of

the faith and of morals.

What is the authority of these documents and what adherence

do they postulate? Their authority comes 1) from the fact that

they emanate from the Congregation of Cardinals charged with

safeguarding the doctrine of faith and of morals, upon which the

Holy Father confers a power that participates in his own; 2) from

the Pope’s explicit approval (in forma communi). Thus confirmed,

these documents remain acts of the Congregation, but they have

access to the levels of the ordinary magisterium
n

. The Pope, in

fact exercises his ordinary magisterium not only by himself, but

also, when he considers it opportune, through his auxiliaries in

ecclesiastical law, the Congregations, and in the first place the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It follows that the

doctrinal decisions 12 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith postulate the internal and religious assent which is due to the

acts of the ordinary non-infallible magisterium.
13

This calls for the following remarks:

1. In a doctrinal document, not everything is a doctrinal deci-

sion. The latter is generally surrounded by various considerations

of an explanatory or documentary nature which do not claim the

14



same assent
14

. An attentive effort of analysis is therefore
neces-

sary to pick out the doctrinal decision
properly speaking.

2. A doctrinal decision of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of

the Faith may be concerned with recalling authoritatively
a teach-

ing of the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Care must there-

fore be taken to distinguish between the form (a
magisterial docu-

ment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith which,

while it comes under the ordinary magisterium, is not
guaranteed

by infallibility), and the content (which may be a dogma
of faith).

Thus, for example, on February 21, 1972, the
Congregation pub-

lished the declaration Mysterium Filii Dei to recall and
safeguard

these principal truths of Revelation which are the
mysteries of

Incarnation and Holy Trinity. The adherence due to these
dogmas

goes far beyond the assent which is required for
documents of the

ordinary non - i nfa 1 1 i ble magisterium. It is a question
simply of the

“divine Catholic faith” (DS, 3011).

The Episcopal Conferences

In the course of this talk I have not dealt with the
Episcopal

Conferences. Although the subject is worthy of being
treated in

itself, I do not think that it is indispensable to tackle it
here. The

episcopal conferences were set up to enable bishops to
achieve

closer harmony and more coordinated action in carrying out
their

task, and they render unquestionable services in this field
(cf. CD,

37). By themselves , however, they do not exercise
any magiste-

rium. Certainly, in well-defined cases of a pastoral nature,
a two-

thirds majority can be juridically binding on the members of a
con-

ference as a whole, and consequently force the minority to
fall in

with the opinion of the majority. But it should be noted
that it is a

question every time of cases prescrbed by common law (which

always comes under the supreme power), or of special cases dealt

with following upon a mandate from the Apostolic See, which
has

also the task of “recognizing” all decisions reached (cf. CD 38,4).

Therefore there is no intermediary of divine right between the head

of the particular Church and the supreme authority.

But this reminder of the bishop’s specific status in his
diocese

(cf. Can. 329) is not an invitation to insularity. On the contrary
the

collegial spirit (affectus collegialis), which has its roots in
the

very nature of the episcopate, leads to exchanges and collabora-

tion with other dioceses, particularly within the Episcopal
Con-

15



ference (LG, 23). As regards the ministry of the Word of God, the
Conference can offer very important services. Just think of the

doctrinal commissions intended to promote sound theological work

and to carry out the part of watching over writings. In the latter

field, it is perhaps useful to recall that “the episcopal conference

can draw up a list of censors, outstanding for their knowledge,

their prudence and the soundness of their doctrine, who are at
the disposal of episcopal curias; or can set up a commission of

censors whom the local bishops can consult” 15 . Acting in this way,
the conference offers a specialized service, without, however, im-

posing a limitation on the initiative of the local bishop.

The Doctrinal Explanation of Pastoral Decisions

I do not need to enumerate the means at the disposal of a

bishop today to proclaim the Christian doctrine, or above all to

stress the decisive importance of catechetical teaching. Moreover

the bishops present here know better than I do the possibilities

offered by the various media of social communication nowadays.

I would like, however, to draw attention further to one point. At

present, more than in the past, bishops should always be available

to give doctrinal explanations about their pastoral decisions. Let

me quote to you here some characteristic words of Paul VI: “As a
result of the progress of human culture, the importance of which

for religion must not be neglected, the faithful follow the directives

of the Church more fully and more lovingly if they see clearly the

raisons d'etre of definitions and laws, at least as far as that is

possible in matters of faith and morals” 16 .

Let us take for example the application in our dioceses of the

Holy See norms on eucharistic hospitality or on general absolution.

It is not sufficient to watch over the faithful application of these

rules; it is also necessary to shed light on the doctrine of which

they are the pastoral expression. It must be shown that beyond the

norms on the admission of other Christians to eucharistic com-

munion in the Catholic Church 17 (which is incorrectly called “in-

tercommunion”), there is the teaching of our faith on the essential

relations that exist between the Church and eucharistic celebra-

tion; and that the rules concerning collective absolution 18 have

the aim of safeguarding concretely the specific function of the

Sacrament of Penance, as exercise of the power of the keys. In

fact, unlike baptism which effects justification by way of ablution,

16



the Sacrament of Penance remits sins in the form of a
judgment.

To pass judgment, a knowledge of the facts is necessary
which

only a precise and complete confession can furnish.
Consequently

the custom of collective absolution, except for cases
of physical

or moral impossibility, is not only a serious abuse,
but an action

that is directly opposed to the nature of the sacrament.

This readiness to answer the questions of our faithful,
calls for

a personal preparation that is continually
maintained and brought

up to date. Where this preparation is lacking, the action of
bishops

becomes timid, too reserved, and runs the risk of letting
impor-

tant pastoral opportunities slip by. In connection
with new forms

of spiritual life, among which “charismatic renewal” draws atten-

tion more particularly, allow me to recall the recommendation

made to bishops by Paul VI on several occasions: they cannot

stand aside, waiting and seeing. “The spiritual life of the faithful

depends on the active pastoral responsibility of each bishop in

his own diocese”
19

. It is up to them to “test all things and hold

fast to that which is good” (LG, 12). This work of discernment
in

spiritual matters presupposes, of course, a solid doctrinal back-

ground. The bishop cannot assume these functions unless he is

a “teacher of doctrine” in himself. The collaborators to whom he

must appeal to support him, can never take his place. Speaking of

the task of preaching the Gospel, the Council of Trent decreed

that it must be assumed personally (per se ipsos) by the bishop.

I would like to end with a comparison. Whom do we put at the

head of our universities? Usually a well-known professor, who has

gained experience and prestige in the field of teaching. But this is

not always the case. Sometimes we find there a politician, an ad-

ministrator, a banker, or even a general. Why? Because under cer-

tain circumstances, questions of a practical nature come to the

foreground: it is necessary to improve a financial situation, to pro-

ceed with important constructions, to redistribute the personnel

more rationally, to coordinate different services, etc. ... In a word,

it is necessary to organize. Organization becomes a priority aim,

and a great organizer is called in, who can always obtain the help

of others for questions concerning teaching.

Can it be the same in a diocese? I answer no. Whatever the

circumstances may be organization can never override the primary

and permanent task of evangelization. All others are subordinated

to this principal aim, including organization, the importance of

17



which, nevertheless, must be admitted. Always and everywhere

the preaching of the Gospel will be imposed on the bishop, not

only as a personal duty, but as the first of his duties. The latter,

however, far from being a burden, is for him the source of his joy

and gives balance to his existence. In fact the Gospel which he

preaches to others, unifies his prayer, his study and his work; it

also gives his personal life its deep meaning. The bishop is there-

fore a happy man.

18



NOTES

1

Cf. G. Philips, I'Eglise et son mystere au lle Concile du Vatican , t.l, Paris,

1967, p.170.

2

“Charisma veritatis certum" is the expression of St. Irenaeus (Adv.

Haer., IV, XXVI, 2), which is taken up again in the Constitution Dei Verbum

(8): “From the preaching of those who have received, along with their right

of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth’’.

3

The bishops “lead others to perfection’’ (CD, 15). The Council uses here

the classical expression perfectores, of Dionysian origin.

4

The instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites Eucharisticum mys-

terium (25.5.67) takes up this conciliar text again, explaining it a little:

“In the eucharistic celebration, presided over by the bishop surrounded by

his presbyterium and his ministers, in the midst of the active participation of

the whole People of God, is the principal manifestation of the Church, hier-

archically constituted" (42).

5

It will always be to the advantage of bishops to re-read the Directorum

de pastorali ministerio episcoporum, published by the Congregation of

Bishops, in 1973.

6

L. Boyer, I’Eglise du Christ
,
Paris, 1970, p. 441.

7

In what precedes, we take up again some formulations of an interview

given by Cardinal J. Ratzinger on the Vatican Radio on 1 July 1977.

8

On 20 June 1977, to the French Bishops of the Centre-East (region of

Lyon), on their visit “ad limina”. Furthermore, when the Pope takes a stand

on a point with the manifest desire to settle a question that has been much

debated up to then, it is clear that the latter is no longer a matter of free

discussion for theologians. Such is the teaching of Pius XII, in the encyclical

Humani generis (12.8.1950) (cf. DS, 3885).

9

L. Boyer, op. cit., p. 549.

10
cf. Pius IX, Tuas libenter, letter to the Archbishop of Munich, on 21.12.

1863; DS 2879.

11

Since 1972, the Congregation has published among other things

Declaration on Christology (1972), on the Church (1973), on abortion

(1974), on certain questions concerning sexual ethics (1975), on the ques-

tion of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood (1976), and
pastoral Norms on collective absolution (1972).

12
I take up again here the vocabuary of Pius IX: “. . . opus esse, ut se

subiciant decisionibus
,
quae ad doctrinam pertinentes a Pontificiis Congre-

gationibus proferuntur" (see preceding quotation; DS 2880).
13

An organism of ecclesiastical law cannot, of course, participate in the

prerogative of infallibility.

14
The distinction between “the norm of the Church which is imposed

on everyone and “theological reflection” which manifests just a “deep fit-

ness" without constituting “a demonstrative argumentation", is clearly

expressed in Inter insigniores, 5 (Declaration on the question of the admis-

sion of women to the ministerial priesthood).
15

Ecclesiae pastorum, art. 6 (Decree of the Congregation for the Faith

with regard to the vigilance of the pastors of the Church over books, 19.3.

1975).

19



1

6

Preamble of the Motu Proprio Integrae servandae of 7.12.1965 In
which the Congregation of the Holy Office is given a new name and new
regulations (becoming the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

17
Instruction of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians (29.6.1972).

18

Pastoral Norms (see above note 11).

19
Words spoken on 10.10.1973 in the course of an address to the mem-

bers of a Congress of charismatic groups which had met at Grottaferrata.
(See also the address delivered on 19.5.1975 to the international Congress
of charismatic renewal, which met in Rome on the occasion of the Holy Year.

20



Theology and the Human Sciences;

Theology and Contemplation

Address to Catholic University Faculty

November 13, 1978

You have asked me to prepare a “presentation” for this meet-

ing. You expect me, if I understand you correctly, to propose to

you some points for our common reflection. I think, however, that

it is useful to precede the presentation of the subjects with a brief

presentation of the speaker.

Most of my life has been dedicated to the teaching of theology.

From 1944 to 1962 (with a short interruption for the preparation

of my thesis for the doctorate) I taught dogmatic theology in Bel-

gium and in France, full time and as my only and exclusive occu-

pation. From 1962 to 1966, I continued to teach, but part time,

for I was at the same time General Secretary of Studies in the Do-

minican Order to which I belong, and an expert at the Council.

Since 1966, that is for the last 12 years, I have been a member of

the Roman Curia: first in the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians

and today in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cer-

tainly, my present work no longer permits me to teach, but it

keeps me in contact with theological work, in which my interest
has not diminished.

No longer having to teach theology daily, I can perhaps view

things in better perspective in order to discern where the essential

problems arise and what are the great tasks that await those who

can dedicate themselves to research today.

Having to limit myself, I propose to you two questions only, re-

gretting not to be able to tackle more: I. Must theology today be

contemplative? II. What service can the human sciences render

theology?

I. Must theology today be contemplative?

If F.S. Schmitt’s chronology is exact, we are perhaps celebrating

in this year the ninth centenary of St. Anselm’s “Proslogion” \

21



As you know, this work, together with another that follows it, was

published by St. Anselm under the title Fides quaerens intellec-

tum (Faith seeking understanding). This title is the whole pro-

gram of St. Anselm. Actually, the formula has had a great success

and has been taken up again by most theologians.

I wonder, however, if this easy agreement on a formula does

not conceal very different positions, some of which are far from

being in harmony with St. Anselm’s thought. For the monk of Bee,

it is not a question of just any understanding of revealed data but

of an intellectual perception which lies inter fidem et speciem

(between faith and the beatific vision). Note the boldness of the

statement and the contemplative orientation he gives to the whole

theological effort.

But let us reread this expression in its own context. It is found

in Anselm’s letter to Pope Urban II (1098); “Since I conceive the

understanding which we enjoy in this life as a middle term be-

tween faith (fidem) and the beatific vision (speciem), I am of the

opinion that the more one progresses in this understanding, the

nearer one draws to the beatific vision to which we all aspire” 2 .

Not only, therefore, is the theologian’s rational research set inter

fidem et speciem, but it is movement towards the beatific vision.

Let me now ask you the question: Do you have the impression

that this orientation is always perceived as a necessity today? And

yet it corresponds well to the very nature of theology, which is the

science of Revelation.

Revelation, the primordial mystery which communicates all the

others to us, a manifestation of the plan of salvation conceived by

God from time immemorial and realized in Jesus Christ, is an

event, a divine initiative, a free and sovereign act, on which man

by himself cannot count and which he cannot foresee. This inter-

vention of God has a new and unforeseen character which goes

beyond the expectation of men.

If this is so, must not the theologian always have his eyes fixed

on this unveiling of God’s mystery which Revelation is, on this

“self-manifestation of God in loving confidence” 3 . Is this look not

the very look of contemplation, in which understanding and wor-

ship are inseparable?

Flere there intervenes the mediation of the magisterium, on

which it falls to communicate what has been revealed to the be-

22



lieving community, to guarantee its authenticity and protect it from

all contamination. Without this intervention of the teaching
author-

ity of the Church—which is nothing but the faithful and uninter-
rupted preaching of Christ's Gospel—a contemplative theology,
a theology which has the ambition to set itself inter fidem

et

speciem, would be inconceivable.

Divergent movements of thought oppose this contemplative

orientation of theology today. I would like to mention two:

— certain anthropological approaches which confer on man
a role that is not his in the plan of God, creator and redeemer;

— certain theories and programs which, in the Christian
message, give primacy to social and political commitment.

1. Tackling the first movement of thought, I wish to stress

the adjective “certain”; for what compromises the true proceed-

ings of theology is not interest in man, but a certain dispropor-

tion, an excess which makes man an idol, a kind of pseudo-abso-

lute, whereas his whole dignity consists in the place, at once

eminent and relative, that he occupies in the mystery of creation

and redemption.

Interest in man is indispensable for theology:

a) It was for us men, and for our salvation, that the Word be-

came flesh. The salvation of men is not a secondary effect, a

“by-product” of a wider and more ambitious divine plan. This

question has caused theologians to reflect a great deal. The most

varied theses have been put forward, but in the end we come back

to the essential fact of revelation. The Son of Man came to look for

and save what was lost (cf Lk 19:10). Man is thus the beneficiary

of Incarnation. I wonder if we have reflected sufficiently on this

essential affirmation of our faith.

b) The human person, by his very nature, is not a being en-

closed, shut up in his own universe, but on the contrary is open to

everything that exists; his intelligence and his will are made for

unlimited truth and good. In this way, the mystery of infinite God

(with his plan of salvation) corresponds to this receptivity that

the Creator has conferred on his human creature. This aptitude,

certainly, is not a demand, for man cannot assert any right; but

it is capacity. So that when God carries out his plan of saving men

in Jesus Christ, by giving them a share in those divine treasures

23



which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind
(cf DV, 6), He does not destroy human nature, as when a small,
decrepit building is pulled down to replace it with another larger
and more modern one; nor does He add something extra, as when
the height of a house is raised by building a new storey. No,
through the work of salvation and the communication of Himself,

God comes to fulfill man. And only God is capable of doing so.

When we speak of intellectual movements which estrange the
Christian thinker from contemplation, it is not, therefore, a ques-

tion of those who show an interest in man such as he appears in
the mystery of creation and redemption, but of those who isolate
man, shut him up in himself and confer on him a kind of self-

sufficiency. For these intellectual movements, which may be very
different from one another, man no longer just occupies his place
in the plan of salvation, but becomes its judge; he is no longer
the one who docilely accepts the revelation which is communicated
and which operates; he becomes its criterion and measure.

We have various expressions in history of this anthropological
option. For Spinoza (1632-1677), who speaks in the name of
man s rationality, the content of “revealed” religion is rational,
but its form is absolutely irrational. The latter merely represents,

symbolically and in a way adapted to popular mentality, the philo-

sophical truths about God and man, the content of which is, in the
last resort, moral and practical.

For the modernist movement at the beginning of this century,
it is human interiority which is determinant. The whole of Chris-
tianity is rethought exclusively according to this criterion. Both

among liberal Protestants and among Catholic modernists, the
concern to free religious knowledge from any relationship with

speculative reason, is met with. For Auguste Sabatier, the Chris-

tian can accept as true only what he feels is true. For Alfred Loisy,

the Bible is only the collection of the experiences of the Old

Testament believer and of the first Christians, the Church having

no other role than to express these individual experiences.

The mentality of modern man, as conceived by Rudolf Bult-

mann, is the anthropological criterion with which the famous

Protestant exegete, who died two years ago, operates. The biblical

themes of the pre-existence of Christ, the Incarnation, the re-

deeming death, the resurrection of Jesus, his ascension and his

return at the end of time, are part of a vision of the world which is

24



absolutely unacceptable for modern man, for whom it is impos-

sible to adopt, by an act of will, an outworn conception of reality

as a whole.

According to Catholic theology, it is—as we said—through
the mediation of the Church that man comes into contact with

revelation as the sovereign and free act of God. Consequently,

where reference to the magisterium is reduced or is lacking, the

anthropological argumentation (of various origins) asserts itself,

preponderant, encroaching, irresistible. The consequences are im-

mediately apparent in the theology of Christ, justification and

grace, in Christian ethics, in catechesis, in spirituality, in the

liturgy and in apostolic methods. . . .

To conclude our reflections on this point, we could perhaps say

that where the anthropological consideration takes precedence

over the supremacy of revelation, we witness a curious reversal:

man is no longer in the image of God, but it is God who is con-

ceived in the image of man. Thus we find ourselves in the pres-

ence of a new and paradoxical form of anthropomorphism.

2. The second anti-contemplative movement of thought,

based on the preeminence of action, is fundamentally only a vari-

ant of the one we have just described. It is a new way of con-

forming to the requirements of certain ideological elements of

contemporary culture. For this movement, efficacy comes first:

theology will be finalized by “praxis”; it will give primacy to

commitment; its main interest will concern social structures and

political institutions, leaving problems of private morality in the

background. It will be clearly distinguished from classical theology,

which has the defect, in its eyes, of not having a stance or being

committed.

It is, of course, up to those who promote this theology to justify

such a position, and particularly this “praxis” to which they con-

stantly refer. Is “praxis” to be accepted as a postulate, or does

it admit of analysis, criticisms and perhaps rectification? Is it

unique? If, on the contrary, it presents itself in different forms

and with different orientations, what will be the criterion which

will make choice possible?

If I formulate these questons, it is to show how these theologies

of social and political action impose on themselves an impossible

task by giving preference to commitment rather than thought. In

25



this way they easily become the prey of fashionable ideologies,
when they are not their direct emanation.

The error consists in opposing contemplation and efficacy.
Personally, for me there is no efficacy except the one that
comes from contemplation. With our eyes fixed on God, we are
able to become acquainted with the plan of salvation realized in
Jesus Christ. This divine plan is not a mere enriching of intelli-

gence, it is action. God who becomes incarnate, the foundation of
the Church and her apostolate, the announcement of the Kingdom,

already mysteriously present, but which will receive from God its
completion at the end of time: all that is action. This action, how-

ever, is not exhausted in itself. It brings us back incessantly and

finally to contemplation: “We know we shall be like him, for we
shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).

Before the unveiling of the mystery of salvation, the Christian

is not a spectator but an actor. We are aware that we know God
if we keep his commandments. That is the test of authenticity

according to St John (1 Jn 2:3). Already at the origins of Chris-

tianity there loomed up the danger of an escape into gratuitous

religious speculations. Hence the insistent reminder: faith must

inform the whole of existence. This warning constitutes the Chris-

tian message.

In the framework of contemplative theology, the main re-

quirement of the theologians of “praxis” can be fully honored;

the struggle against social and political injustices is not extraneous

to the plan of salvation. The Christian cannot tolerate man being

kept in conditions incompatible with his dignity. But it is only in

this framework that the imperious duty of helping men and reform-

ing institutions will find its precise place, and its justification, with

the indication of the ways which make it possible not to get lost.

II. What service can the human sciences render to theology?

When people speak today of the human sciences in their rela-

tionship with faith, they are generally referring to the following

disciplines: psychology (including psychoanalysis), sociology,

ethnology and the science of religions. Some of them are not just

theoretical but also practical, partaking of the nature of science

and art at the same time. In the past these disciplines were often

studied by thinkers alien to faith, so that certain versions of them

have been integrated into an atheistic view of the world and of

26



existence. In the last few decades these sciences have developed

prodigiously and draw general attention, kept alive by the media

of social communication.

What will be the attitude of the theologian to these disciplines?

It must, it seems to me, be both positive and critical.

It will be positive , because these disciplines “offer theology,

each in its own way, important aid to get to know man better

(. . .) and at the same time they are a stimulus to determine more

perfectly the meaning of the revealed truths which refer to man”
4

.

Everything that concerns man interests the theologian, for the

science of revelation, like revelation itself, is for the good of men.

it will be critical
,
for theology can take from them only results

that have been scientifically verified, taking into account, how-

ever, the degree of certainty peculiar to each of them. I understand

“critical”, of course, not in the sense of an unfavorable judgment

but in that of a close examination of value, of a correct apprecia-

tion of qualities.

Let us take up again each of these points. 1. The human sci-

ences help us to get to know man better. That does not mean,

however, that they constitute, in themselves, knowledge of human

nature. In fact these sciences are all sciences of observation which

grasp man in a determined and limited context. They are, there-

fore, strictly speaking, sciences of human behavior. To serve

knowledge of human nature
,
they need the mediation of philosophy

which, alone, makes it possible to define permanent values in the

eyes of reason.

2. The human sciences are a stimulus. The expression is an

opportune one for it sheds light on the type of relationship which

must be established between these disciplines and theology. It is

a question, in fact, of distinct fields and different objects with,

consequently, methods of their own. Relations will be based on

dialogue. Theology will let itself be questioned by the human

sciences, but it will give its answers in the light of the Word of

God. This questioning will be precious for it will lead theology to

react in an autonomous way, considering new aspects of the

human problem and shedding light on new virtualities of the mys-

tery of salvation.

3. These sciences call for a careful critical examination. In

the first place because they constitute a field in which philosophi-

27



cal premises and, in general, socio-cultural conditions play an

important role. Furthermore, because certain specialists in these

matters tend to forget the frontiers of their own discipline, and

to generalize their conclusions too easily, losing sight of the other

sciences which deal with man. The sociologist for whom the whole

of reality is sociology, and the psychologist for whom everything

can be explained by psychoanalysis, are not rare beings. Finally,

because these human sciences, if they are in full development,

are also in full research; their conclusions, of course, feel the

effects. It is often the sociologists themselves who warn theo-

logians against an infatuation which is not justified.

What is to be done? The task is a complex one. Is the theologian

capable of dealing with it alone? Will he become in turn a sociol-

ogist, psychologist, ethnologist, and historian of religions? Of

course not. It is here that the dialogue recommended by Vati-

can II is necessary: “Through a sharing of resources and points

of view, let those who teach in seminaries, colleges and universi-

ties try to collaborate with men well versed in the other sciences”

(GS, 62:7). There is a great deal to be done to bring about this

collaboration.

This dialogue is at once demanding and difficult. The Council

reminds us: “Although the Church has contributed much to the

development of culture, experience shows that, because of cir-

cumstances, it is sometimes difficult to harmonize culture with

Christian teaching” (GS, 62:1).

This is not an invitation to resignation or to compromise. Our

convictions of faith tell us that we must try to overcome disagree-

ments, with patience, certainly, but also with tenacity. “Although

faith is above reason, there can never be a real disagreement

between them. Since the same God who reveals the mysteries

and communicates faith, has made the light of reason descend

into the human mind, God could not deny himself nor could

truth ever contradict truth” 5 . This teaching of the first Vatican

Council ensures the Catholic theologian a dynamism animated by

a hope.

The object of my second question was the human sciences. How-

ever we have seen clearly that a correct consideration of these

disciplines in themselves and of the service they can render

theology, calls for an intervention of philosophy at every moment.

Such is the paradox of the present situation. These human sci-

28



ences which seem, in the eyes of some people, able to replace

philosophy, owing to their mere existence and to the interest they

arouse, appeal incessantly to specifically philosophical reflection.

That is a point which also claims our attention.

* * *

Such are the two questions that I wanted to put before you. They

show clearly, it seems to me, the prime importance of questions

of method in theology and also the necessity of a personal com-

mitment of the theologian which concerns his whole existence.

Thank you for your attention.

NOTES

Cf. the introduction on St Anselm, his time and his work, given by
R. Roques in his excellent edition of Cur Deus homo (Anselme de Cantor-
bery, Pourquoi Dieu s'est fait homme. Sources chretiennes, 91, Paris,

1963). The chronology is to be found on pp. 43-44.

2

The letter to Urban II will be found in the above-mentioned volume,

pp. 194-197 (PL, 158, p. 261 A).

3

R. Latourelle, Theologie de la revelation, 3 e edition, Paris, 1969, pp. 9-

10 .

4

S.C. for Catholic education, La formation theologique des futurs pretres,

Rome, 1976, p. 24.

5

Constitutio dogmatica “Dei Filius” de fide catholica, Cap. 4 (DS, 3017).
(Sept., 1978)

29



'