Donum Veritatis question

[CrossofChrist]

One question I have is did Donum Veritatis allow, for theologians (not lay people) to disagree with non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium? The context for this is DV 23-31, and while it never approves a theologian not assenting to a teaching it implies that, if the conditions enumerated are met, it can be tolerated. The reason I say that is implied is because after describing all of the ways in which a theologian should act when he/she has a difficulty, the document says:

1. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. [/INDENT]

Since the theologian is “a loyal spirit”, it implies he/she is able to not assent to a proposition if the previous conditions listed in the document are met. On the other hand, maybe it is saying the “loyal spirit” will assent to the Church’s non-infallible teachings against his/her own opinion, because he/she is “animated by love for the Church”.

Help on this question would be appreciated!

 

[triumphguy]

DONUM VERITATIS

When the Pope and/or Bishops speak ‘in a definitive way’ the theologian,

"must firmly accept and hold these teachings, even if they ‘are not divinely revealed [but] are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with revelation.’

Theologians must respond with ‘religious submission of will and intellect’ even when the magisterium does not act ‘definitively.’

The theologians’ response ‘cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary.’ It must be internal too.

Thus, even when the papal magisterium (that is, pope and bishops) is not teaching infallibly, or even when the teaching is “merely” an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, ‘submission of will and intellect’ is required.

The Virgin Mary is Mother and perfect Icon of the Church. From the very beginnings of the New Testament, she has been called blessed because of her immediate and unhesitating assent of faith to the Word of God (cf. Lk 1:38. 45) which she kept and pondered in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19. 51). Thus did she become a model and source of help for all of the People of God entrusted to her maternal care. She shows us the way to accept and serve the Word. At the same time, she points out the final goal, on which our sights should ever be set, the salvation won for the world by her Son Jesus Christ which we are to proclaim to all men.

 

[Murmurs]

DONUM VERITATIS

When the Pope and/or Bishops speak ‘in a definitive way’ the theologian,

"must firmly accept and hold these teachings, even if they ‘are not divinely revealed [but] are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with revelation.’

Theologians must respond with ‘religious submission of will and intellect’ even when the magisterium does not act ‘definitively.’

The theologians’ response ‘cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary.’ It must be internal too.

Thus, even when the papal magisterium (that is, pope and bishops) is not teaching infallibly, or even when the teaching is “merely” an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, ‘submission of will and intellect’ is required.

What’s the point of studying theology, then?

If ultimately your study implies something that is seemingly contrary to the Magisterium, you have disbelieve yourself and give inward consent (not merely outward conformity) to it? If you can’t reach your own conclusions after academic work on it, why do it? Just to end up having to parrot back what you’re meant to say?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I thought it was clearer than my initial attempt to ask the question in a nuanced way

 

[triumphguy]

What’s the point of studying theology, then?

If ultimately your study implies something that is seemingly contrary to the Magisterium, you have disbelieve yourself and give inward consent (not merely outward conformity) to it? If you can’t reach your own conclusions after academic work on it, why do it? Just to end up having to parrot back what you’re meant to say?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I thought it was clearer than my initial attempt to ask the question in a nuanced way

What was the point of the the Angel speaking to Mary? Why didn’t God just make her pregnant without her assent?

Because assent means something.

If tradition and Church teaching is the actual truth told by Christ then of course it is our role to assent to it.

If we don’t believe that then by all means dissent.

This gets us into areas of conscience - we should follow our conscience, but we should also form (conform) our conscience.

 

[thinkandmull]

At the very least bishops can disagree with a fallible teaching. Otherwise a false fallible teaching could never be reformed

 

[Genesis315]

I think it is saying for a “loyal spirit” to believe some pronouncement to be in error and to be unable to assent to it, it can cause suffering. But if what the theologian sincerely believes is true really is then the Holy Spirit will ensure that truth wins out.

We should remember that “religious submission” is not the same as the absolute submission of divine or ecclesiastical faith. The pronoucements that require those levels of assent can never be in error, thus the assent is absolute. Those that require religious submission can be in error (even if they are very unlikely to be so), therefore the concept of religious submission accounts for that. In Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he describes religious submission like this:

“as an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called ‘silentium obsequiosum,’ that is 'reverent silence,'does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”

From what I’ve gathered from other old manuals, this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, and criticism may even be given in a manner consonant with one’s rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ promulgating the teaching.

This is basically what Donum Veritatis says in paragraphs 24-31.

 

[triumphguy]

I think it is saying for a “loyal spirit” to believe some pronouncement to be in error and to be unable to assent to it, it can cause suffering. But if what the theologian sincerely believes is true really is then the Holy Spirit will ensure that truth wins out.

We should remember that “religious submission” is not the same as the absolute submission of divine or ecclesiastical faith. The pronoucements that require those levels of assent can never be in error, thus the assent is absolute. Those that require religious submission can be in error (even if they are very unlikely to be so), therefore the concept of religious submission accounts for that. In Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he describes religious submission like this:

“as an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called ‘silentium obsequiosum,’ that is 'reverent silence,'does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”

From what I’ve gathered from other old manuals, this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, and criticism may even be given in a manner consonant with one’s rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ promulgating the teaching.

This is basically what Donum Veritatis says in paragraphs 24-31.

But that is also exceedingly rare. It’s not a question of figuring there’s one or two errors discerned by people on social media in everything the pope says/writes.

 

[Murmurs]

What was the point of the the Angel speaking to Mary? Why didn’t God just make her pregnant without her assent?

Because assent means something.

If tradition and Church teaching is the actual truth told by Christ then of course it is our role to assent to it.

If we don’t believe that then by all means dissent.

This gets us into areas of conscience - we should follow our conscience, but we should also form (conform) our conscience.

I absolutely agree that assent or consent mean something; probably the most important moment in the New Testament (arguably) is Mary’s fiat. But I am not sure the parallel is quite right. She wasn’t called in that moment to believe something she thought was ridiculous (merely, perhaps, extraordinary. But then she had an angel in front of her so any of us would probably agree with an otherwise-ridiculous idea!).

Now forgive me, for I am about to use an entirely ridiculous example, but I hope it makes my point clear (so you can help me understand better!!):

If it could be somehow construed Biblically that Jesus condemned the eating of lettuce as sinful, and Church tradition upheld this condemnation, we would, presumably, be called upon to abstain from lettuce, correct?

Now every mite of logic or common sense employed by any member of the laity with two brain cells to rub together, never mind a professional theologian, bishop, or biologist, would surely lead us all to conclude that condemning lettuce as intrinsically sinful is utterly ridiculous (we might assume that Jesus had drunk too much water and was experiencing the all-too-human flaw of inebriation, perhaps ).

And yet the Church teaches that lettuce is an abomination (in my example). Would we therefore be required not merely to avoid lettuce (giving our “outward consent”), but believe what the Church teaches even when it flies in the face of the facts?

I don’t think this is necessarily a means for say someone who would rather have guilt- or risk- or baby-free sex to have license to use contraception, even within a loving marriage, which is merely ignoring a teaching because it’s convenient. I am talking about clear enquiry leading one to conclude the Church is wrong even at the risk of contradicting 2000 years worth of Magisterial teaching.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t think this is necessarily a means for say someone who would rather have guilt- or risk- or baby-free sex to have license to use contraception, even within a loving marriage, which is merely ignoring a teaching because it’s convenient. I am talking about clear enquiry leading one to conclude the Church is wrong even at the risk of contradicting 2000 years worth of Magisterial teaching.

The matter concerning contraception is closed.

 

[Murmurs]

The matter concerning contraception is closed.

Sure, and I wasn’t suggesting I thought it should (or could) be re-opened. But we’re both aware of many people, including many otherwise-faithful Catholics, who disagree. It was just an illustration (and why I mostly used the rather unlikely condemnation of lactuca sativa as my main example!!)