This morning I came across an even more recent exchange of letters in First Things that illustrates the care that needs to be taken in attempting to determine precisely what authoritative Church teaching may be when dealing with topical discussions. This is not at all to suggest that Church teaching is up for grabs–to the contrary, I believe that in its essentials it is readily ascertainable. Three persons have written to comment on an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles. Dulles replies to their comments, one of which brings up Church teaching on just war, capital punishment, and the role of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here goes (oh, I’ve added some helpful bold type and underlining):
Questions of Reform
In “True and False Reform.” (August/September), Avery Cardinal Dulles displays his usual clarity and forthrightness.
I do, however, differ from him in a nuanced but important way regarding the pastoral theology of Vatican II. I believe that the strength of his exposition on orthodoxy (with which I entirely agree) relies on the conceptual theologizing deriving from Trent, Vatican I, and the new Thomism. In effect, this style of reflection portrays Vatican II as a doctrinal council (especially regarding the ecclesial role of the bishops). As Cardinal Dulles remarks, “The Council exalted the episcopacy to an unprecedented peak of power and responsibility.”
My research on Vatican II as a pastoral council leads me to believe that Vatican II was primarily concerned with meanings and values, not doctrinal truths which had already been established by the Tradition of the Church. Hence, Vatican II’s style of reflection is a study in ecclesial subjectivity: i.e., on the corporate meanings and values residing in the ecclesial community. This descriptive, not defining, style of reflection is intent on serving a world in crisis on the model of the Good Samaritan. For this awesome millennial undertaking the Council projected a renewed Christocentric humanism or anthropology.
I have used the term “phenomenology” to elucidate the above “attitude shift” from objectivism to subjectivism, a shift that reflected that philosophy’s mid-century popularity in Europe.
John F. Kobler, C.P.
Immaculate Conception Monastery
Chicago, Illinois
I enjoyed reading Avery Cardinal Dulles’ “True and False Reform.” I would like him to clarify one statement he makes, and consider a question, both regarding the Lutheran Reformation.
First: In his essay Cardinal Dulles states, “Luther and his colleagues also took up the theme of reform, but in the name of correcting abuses they attacked essentials of the Catholic faith and became separated from the Church.” I would like to ask what “essentials of the Catholic faith” the Lutheran Reformers attacked, particularly since the presenters of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 took great pains to claim that their teachings were not contrary to catholic faith:
We have related only matters which we have considered it necessary to adduce and mention in order that it may be made very clear that we have introduced nothing, either in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Holy Scripture or the universal Christian Church.
Further, Cardinal Dulles’ statement suggests that the Lutheran Reformers themselves created the break with Rome. Yet repeatedly in the Augsburg Confession the Reformers state that their goal is the unity of the Church:
Thus the matters at issue between us . . . may be discussed amicably and charitably, our differences may be reconciled, and we may be united in one, true religion, even as we are all under one Christ. . . . We on our part shall not omit doing anything, in so far as God and conscience allow, that may serve the cause of Christian unity.
At Augsburg the Lutheran Reformers sought to present a Catholic statement of faith, based on Scripture and tradition; their chief aim was the unity of the Church. That they “became separated” was not a result of their actions, but that the “jury”—i.e., the papal representatives and allies, which included the emperor—had in effect decided the verdict in advance and rejected the Augsburg Confession once it was presented without the possibility of further discussion.
Second, Cardinal Dulles suggests eight “principles by which reform proposals in our day might be assessed.” Reading through them, could not the Lutheran Reformation, at least in its official document of the Augsburg Confession (not Luther’s actions per se), be considered a genuine reform movement within the Catholic Church? A strong case could be made that the proposals of the Lutheran Reformers, certainly at the Diet of Augsburg, met the tests of the eight principles Cardinal Dulles sets forth in his essay.
These are matters of historical debate. I am not suggesting in any way that Lutheranism today shares the same concern for unity of the Church and faithfulness to Catholic teaching that the Reformers at the Diet of Augsburg did, nor does it meet the test of the principles Cardinal Dulles suggests. How Lutheranism has betrayed its own Reformation heritage is another story, about which many more qualified than I have already written.
(The Rev.) Dan Biles
St. Paul Lutheran Church
Spring Grove, Pennsylvania
In “True and False Reform,” Avery Cardinal Dulles promotes one reform that is specifically educational: the dissemination of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to the laity. But the current Catechism tacitly excludes the traditional understanding of retributive justice as the primary purpose of the death penalty (2266, 2267) and of just war (2307, 2330).
The purpose of punishment, according to the Catechism, is to defend society or to provide restitution (“to redress the disorder caused by the offense”), not to exact deserved retribution. As to just war, the Catechism omits the traditional Augustinian-Thomistic justification for war—i.e., the punishment of evildoers who deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing—in favor of the justification of national self-defense, which need not coincide with retribution.
The current Catechism’s distortion-by-exclusion of the traditional understanding of retributive justice will thrust the Catholic Church directly onto the pathway toward moral irrelevance because if retributive justice has somehow become outdated, then—who knows?—we might be able to save ourselves without the graceful help of the Redeemer.
So why does Cardinal Dulles insist upon disseminating a Catechism that distorts the traditional Catholic understanding of retributive justice?
T. Dan Tolleson
Houston, Texas
Avery Cardinal Dulles responds:
The writers of the three letters here printed take my article as an occasion to make some points that are of special concern to themselves. In the first letter Father Kobler repeats his thesis that Vatican II was a phenomenological council. While there is much to be said for that view, the Council cannot be said to have restricted itself to phenomenology. In some cases it exercised clear doctrinal authority. The language of Lumen Gentium 20 and 21 (the twice-repeated “This sacred synod teaches . . .”) leaves no room for doubt that in these texts the Council was issuing doctrinal statements about the episcopate.
Pastor Biles raises the familiar question whether the Augsburg Confession could be recognized as orthodox by the Catholic Church. During the preparations for the 450th anniversary celebrations of the Confession in 1980, several distinguished theologians contended that such recognition would be possible, but in the end the Holy See stopped short of full recognition. The Pope contented himself with affirming the finding of the German Catholic bishops that they could find in the Augsburg Confession “a full accord on fundamental and central truths.” In my judgment the Confession’s rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass, of religious vows, and of the power of the bishops to impose laws binding in conscience is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with Catholic teaching.
Mr. Tolleson expresses a distaste for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I had mentioned only in passing. Unlike him, I regard it as a > magnificent, though not flawless> , synthesis of Catholic doctrine. It does not put much emphasis on retribution, but it does refer to eternal separation from God and “eternal fire” as punishments inflicted in hell. In speaking of criminal justice it states that the punishment should be “proportionate to the gravity of the offense” and that it may avail to expiate the guilt of the offender> .
True, the Catechism does not approve of punitive wars, but to the best of my knowledge their legitimacy is not a part of modern Catholic teaching, nor am I aware that it has ever been taught by the Magisterium.
For anyone interested, here’s the link to Dulles’ original article, below. In the article, Dulles tries to place the current travails of the Church within an historical context, and so offers a survey of the history of reform throughout Church history and offers some criteria for a true reform:
