Supplements

 

Bishop Braxton

A Reflection on Theological Pluralism

In an address at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium Bishop Edward K. Braxton underscored the emergence of three distinct but overlapping “contexts” within which theology develops today.

“These contexts are the ‘world of the church,’ the ‘world of the secular university’ and the ‘world of powerful social and cultural changes,’” Bishop Braxton said.

His address, “Theology in a New Key: Emerging Pluralism in Theology” was delivered March 19 at the oldest Catholic university in the world, established in 1425 to mark the beginning of the 150th year of the American College, the U.S. Bishops’ Seminary at Louvain.
“The tensions that are manifest among theologians and the conflicts that develop between theologians and the magisterium of the church are often shaped by the different methodologies employed in these overlapping contexts,” Bishop Braxton said.

“Church-based theology is a contemporary expression of ‘faith seeking understanding.’
“University-based theology tends to be critical understanding examining the credibility of faith.
“Social and cultural change-based theology borrows from both of these contexts to develop a theology measured by its relevance to the transformation of oppressive social situations,” the bishop said in his presentation.

The lecture, attended by many faculty and students from the theology and philosophy departments of the university, stressed the importance of the dialectic element in theology for understanding many contemporary conflicts.

Elaborating on Canadian Jesuit Bernard Lonergan’s argument that contemporary theological activity can be organized within eight primary areas of theological specialization — four of which look to the past: 1. research, 2. interpretation, 3. history, 4. dialectic; and four of which look to the present and future: 5. foundations, 6. doctrines, 7. systematics, and 8. communications.

The bishop stressed: “Dialectic is central to understanding and resolving real or apparent conflicts that lead to the characterization of a particular theologian as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative,’ unfaithful or faithful to the Magisterium.”

Following are excerpts from Bishop Braxton’s March 19 lecture at the Louvain:
“The theological fields of research, interpretation, and history often reveal that many conflicting theological theories, doctrines, and beliefs about the nature of the church, the priesthood or the Eucharist have been moving forward at a given historical period.

“Eventually, the question, which position is correct and which position is incorrect, must be raised.

“Next, one asks for the grounds for affirming a position as correct and rejecting a counter-position as incorrect.

“This is where dialectic enters the process. Not content with narrow horizons, dialectic has the high and distant goal of a comprehensive viewpoint. It seeks a framework or a set of frameworks that make it possible to coordinate and integrate the numerous viewpoints that are manifest at a given moment of religious history or in a whole movement of history.

“Dialectic makes it possible to determine whether differences are absolutely irreducible, whether they are multiple elements of a larger complex whole, or whether time will reveal them to be interlocking stages by which a single theological development is unraveling.

At its best, dialectic may demonstrate that, from a higher viewpoint, theological positions, which appeared contradictory, are, in fact, complementary.

“Dialectic is more than simply comparing and contrasting biblical, patristic, medieval, Tridentine, pre-conciliar, post-Vatican II and contemporary Christologies, ecclesiologies, or eschatologies.

“Dialectic is also criticism. By means of rigorous criticism dialectic seeks to uncover viewpoints that are not coherent and arguments that are not sound.

“Dialectic, then, is an open, honest and challenging interchange, which can welcome participants with genuine differences.

“Over time, the dialectical interchange will determine whether these differences are real or apparent. In the process, minor differences can be put aside so that the substantive issues can be engaged, understood, and, hopefully, resolved.

“Of course, in the Catholic context, effective dialectics is not accomplished by theologians alone. Eventually, those who hold positions of ecclesial authority in the community of faith must determine whether the new insights and formulations of theologians are compatible with the perennial beliefs of the community of faith.

“Bishops, and preeminently the Holy Father, play an essential role here, but it is not arbitrary. Ultimately, a certain level of reception must be made by the Christian faithful themselves.

“Yet, ‘reception,’ in the sense of a media survey, is never normative of itself. Reception has very little to do with taking a poll concerning how many Catholics believe in eternal life, the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, or the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

“The essential faith of the church is not altered by the number of people who question or doubt those beliefs. This is why bold speculations of theologians, no matter how cogent, do not quickly find their way into the normative language of the magisterium or the popular expressions of piety of the faithful.

“The resolution of differences surfaced by dialectic is not accomplished by investigation and argument in research, interpretation and historical criticism alone.

“Evidence and reasoned conclusions must be carefully weighed, but they cannot give the whole account of how the questions broached in dialectic are ultimately answered. The bridge between the fourth specialty — dialectic — and the fifth — foundations — is conversion.

“This conversion is not primarily about changing from one ecclesial family to another, though it may come to that. It is about the transformation of one’s horizon and ultimately the transformation of the horizon of one’s community of faith.

“Conversion is not simple but manifold. It involves at least the embrace of a religious sense of reality, an affirmation of God, a radical response to the person, life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus Christ, a genuine commitment to a community of faith, an ongoing struggle for moral responsibility and authentic living, and the liberation of intellect made possible by critical thinking freed of the Enlightenment bias against faith and commitment. Thus, we may speak of religious, theistic, Christian, ecclesial, moral, and intellectual conversion.

“Depending on one’s temperament and personal experience, conversion may have a strong intellectual component, but it need not be exclusively, or even primarily, an intellectual experience.

“Conversion is an experience of self-transcendence, resulting in a shift in one’s point of view. Conversion engages the whole person, not unlike the risk of entering the uncharted waters of a deep, personal friendship or the experience of falling in love.

“While conversion may be analyzed from a psychological perspective, ultimately it is a gift, a matter of divine initiative, a matter of grace.

“The critical role of the dynamic reality of conversion in the minds and hearts of theologians, theological communities and all members of the church is of particular importance if we are to better appreciate the tensions in contemporary theology. It is important to note that every seminarian, theology professor, priest, and bishop — like every member of the church — is, in a sense, in a different ‘moment’ of his or her personal approbation of the Christian faith.

“The tension, which eventually engages conversion, is often caused by questions. Is the religious interpretation of reality meaningful and true? Is the theistic interpretation of the religious sense meaningful and true? Is the Christian interpretation of theism meaningful and true? Is the ecclesial interpretation of the Christian reality meaningful and true? If the ecclesial interpretation of the Christian reality is meaningful and true, are the Roman Catholic understandings of “church” meaningful and true? Is a particular teaching of the church absolutely, definitive and irreformable?
“When questions such as these are finally answered with confidence and conviction, it is not the result of diligent intelligence alone. Various forms and degrees of conversion are at play as the tension is resolved.

“Conversion, then, thematizes horizons and makes possible the transition from the dialectic of the past to the foundations of the present and future. Conversion is a radical change in theologians themselves that allows them to move from the indirect discourse of recounting the diverse thoughts, convictions, and beliefs of others in the past about God, Jesus, the church, the Eucharist the priesthood, sin and grace to the direct discourse that declares what they themselves think, are convinced of, and believe to be the case about God, Jesus, the church, the Eucharist the priesthood, sin and grace in the present.

“I am not suggesting that theologians are suddenly struck by a bolt of lightning and experience conversion.

“The dynamic reality of conversion may well have been an unthematized reality on the horizon of the theologians before they ever began their theological enterprise. But the history of theology clearly indicates that convergences and divergences in theologies are profoundly influenced by the presence or absence of conversion in the lives of the theologians themselves and the schools of theology they represent in theological dialectic. It is also influenced by the degree to which theologians recognize and accept the levels of conversion present or absent in the communities of faith themselves.

“Ecclesial conversion is at the core of the Catholic theologian’s vocation. It is the embrace of the Catholic church as one’s true spiritual home, the locus of both grace and freedom on the road to salvation. Catholic scholars whose horizon is not explicitly ecclesial cannot, in my view, account for their faith community’s beliefs about, for example, the nature and reality of the Eucharist and the sacramental reality of Christ’s presence. This is why the goal of authentic theology is never served if theologians yield to a temptation to ignore or downplay vexing and unresolved substantive differences between their speculations and the magisterium. Ever deepening ecclesial and intellectual conversion is an essential context for the apt formulation of church’s understanding the Christian faith.

“In all theological reflection, collaboration among theologians is essential and necessary. This collaboration leads to fruitful results when theologians and bishops acknowledge and respect their distinct and complementary roles.
“This is easy to say but at times can be difficult to do, especially if theologians have limited contact with the pastoral life of the church and if bishops have limited contact with world of academic theological investigation.
“But it cannot be stressed too often that in the Catholic tradition the relationship between theologians and bishops ought not to be adversarial but complementary,” the bishop said.

Bishop Braxton, who earned two doctorates from Louvain, is the outgoing chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee that oversees the American College Seminary. He is a recognized expert on the theological method of the pioneering theologian, Father Bernard J. F. Lonergan.