But shouldn’t the theologian in question be able to give an account of themselves to clear up possible ambiguities before being publicly criticized by the Church?I think that this article leaves out one major fact - if the author in question had tried to seek a Nihil Obstat Imprimatur prior to publishing then all of that dialogue would have taken place and the situation would have been avoided. However, what is being missed is that theologians receive their authority to call themselves “Catholic theologians” from the Church if they are operating under the proscribed principles of the Church. Meaning if a theologian takes it upon himself or herself to publish without asking first for review then they certainly do open themselves up to this risk - especially if he or she knows what they are writing is possibly not within the guidelines of Church teaching.
I think they knowingly run that risk when they publicly go against Church teaching when they publish without seeking the Nihil Obstat Imprimatur. When they publish without doing this they are already in a state of public disobedience and I submit they have forfeited that right.But shouldn’t the theologian in question be able to give an account of themselves to clear up possible ambiguities before being publicly criticized by the Church?
As JoanofArc noted, the time in the process for the theologian to clear up any ambiguities is when the work is submitted to the local bishop for an Imprimatur.But shouldn’t the theologian in question be able to give an account of themselves to clear up possible ambiguities before being publicly criticized by the Church?
The theologian might see the work as crystal clear, but others might not see it as ambiguous, for example.As JoanofArc noted, the time in the process for the theologian to clear up any ambiguities is when the work is submitted to the local bishop for an Imprimatur.
If the theologian bypasses this process, and introduces the work into publication without such a review, then the response of the bishops should also be public in nature.
Because again the Nihil Obstat Imprimatur is permission to publish - and a theologian interested in obedience would have applied for one in the first place.The theologian might see the work as crystal clear, but others might not see it as ambiguous, for example.
How can it be a full investigation if the author of the work isn’t even consulted?