In a move some theologians say undermines the credibility of the
leading English-language Catholic theological journal, the Vatican has
pressured it to publish a scholarly essay on marriage, unedited and
without undergoing normal peer review.
The essay, which appeared in the June 2011 issue of the quarterly
Theological Studies, published in Milwaukee under the auspices of the
Jesuits, upholds the indissolubility of marriage.
It was a reply to a
September 2004 article in which two theologians argued for a change in
church teachings on divorce and remarriage.
The Vatican has been pressuring the editors at Theological Studies
since not long after the publication of the 2004 essay, according to
theologians not connected to the journal or to the Jesuit order.
The
Vatican aim is to weed out dissenting voices and force the journal to
stick more closely to official church teachings.
The theological sources, who asked not to be identified lest they
come under pressure from the Vatican, say the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith pressured policy changes at Theological Studies.
The journal’s editor in chief, Fr. David G. Schultenover, announced the
changes, following the words “A clarification” printed in bold letters
in his editor’s column in the December 2010 issue.
He then wrote for his subscribers, mostly Catholic theologians who
carefully read each issue for scholarly purposes, an explanation for
some editorial policy shifts in the journal. Schultenover began by
making a reference to a controversial essay published in the journal’s
September 2006 issue.
That essay, sources have told NCR, further raised
tension levels between the Vatican and Theological Studies’ editors.
Wrote Schultenover: “Even with the best professional protocols and
sincerest intentions to offer a journal of service to the church, an
article might appear in our pages that some judge could mislead some
readers. This seems to have been the case with ‘Catholic Sexual Ethics:
Complementarity and the Truly Human,’ by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler
(September 2006). Some readers might have formed an opinion that
because this article appeared in our pages, the journal favors and even
promotes its thesis, one that does not in all aspects conform to
current, authoritative church teaching. For all such readers, I wish to
clarify that this article, insofar as it does not adhere to the church’s
authoritative teaching, does not represent the views of the editors and
sponsors of Theological Studies. While the journal, heeding the
mandates of recent popes to do theology ‘on the frontiers,’ promotes
professional theology for professional theologians, it does not promote
theses that contravene official church teaching, even if — though very
rarely — such theses find a place in our pages. If and when they do, our
policy will be to alert readers and clearly state the current
authoritative church teaching on the particular issue treated.”
Asked by telephone to explain why the journal now feels it necessary
to warn readers when publishing essays believed to contravene official
church teachings, Schultenover refused comment.
When told other
theologians said the Vatican had pressured Theological Studies to make
the editorial changes, he answered: “Their conclusions did not come from
me.”
In an uncommon note in Theological Studies that preceded the
Vatican-mandated June 2011 essay, Schultenover wrote that “except for
minor stylistic changes, the [marriage] article is published as it was
received.”
This editorial note tipped off some Theological Studies readers to
the unusual nature of the article. Fr. James Coriden, canon lawyer,
professor at the Washington Theological Union, and coauthor of the
original 2004 essay on marriage, said that upon reading the note he
immediately concluded Schultenover had been forced to publish it.
“It’s a terrible precedent,” Coriden said, referring both to the
publication of the “as is” article and the new editorial policy that
singles out theology not in keeping with official church teachings.
Coriden is the recipient of the 2011 Catholic Theological Society of
America’s John Courtney Murray Award, the highest honor bestowed by the
society to a theologian.
John Thiel, president of the Catholic Theological Society of America,
said he regrets the Vatican interventions, calling them “misguided” on
several fronts.
“First, it wrongly assumes that the journal’s readership of
professional theologians is incapable of making its own professional
judgments about theological positions. Second, it seems to conflate
theology and doctrine, wrongly thinking that theology’s task is the
repetition of doctrine. Theology’s long history of playing a role in the
process of doctrinal development shows this not to be true. Third, the
publication of an article by a fiat in violation of the editorial
process calls into question the integrity of the article so published,
placing its authors in an unfortunate position.”
Fr. Charles Curran, professor of theology at Southern Methodist
University in Dallas, said the Vatican action “is the most serious
attack possible on U.S. Catholic theology because Theological Studies is
our most prestigious scholarly journal.”
Curran, whom the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared
in 1986 was not suitable to be a Catholic theologian because of his
dissent from hierarchical moral teaching, noted that “once again” it is
moral theology and sexual ethics that has become the Vatican’s litmus of
orthodoxy.
He said the Vatican actions could doubly hurt Theological Studies,
first by encouraging theologians who might be “working on the frontiers”
to go elsewhere with articles they think might no longer get published
in the journal and, secondly, by forcing Theological Studies editors to
“ration dissent” in the publication.
“There’s definitely a chill factor here,” he said. “And if this is
going on here, you have to think it is going on elsewhere, in Europe.”
“The Society of Jesus has a cordial, ongoing relationship with
Cardinal William Levada, moderator of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith,” said Jesuit Fr. Thomas H. Smolich, president of the
Jesuit Conference of the United States.
“The society fully supports
Theological Studies and its mission of theological inquiry and
investigation. I am grateful for the fine job Fr. Schultenover has done
as its editor in chief.”
The article that first sparked the controversy in 2004 was coauthored
by Coriden and Franciscan Fr. Kenneth Himes, chairman of Boston
College’s theology department and previous head of the Catholic
Theological Society of America.
In an earlier essay in Theological Studies, Himes and Coriden argued
for a pastoral approach that would allow divorced and remarried
Catholics to fully participate in the Eucharist under certain
conditions.
However, in the 2004 article, “Indissolubility of Marriage:
Reasons to Reconsider,” they go much further and maintain that the
teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage should be
changed.
“We believe the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried in the
present situation has reached the stage where honesty requires a
reconsideration of the continued divide between the church’s teaching on
indissolubility and the pastoral strategies of its ministers,” they
wrote, asking “if church teachings remain persuasive.”
“By asking this question, however, we do not wish to be seen as
advocates of divorce. The teaching of the Catholic church that marriage
between baptized persons is a sacrament that should entail a permanent
and faithful union of love between husband and wife is a wise and much
needed message in the modern world.”
After years of mounting pressures, exchanges, and at least one
rejected rebuttal submission written by Jesuit Fr. Peter F. Ryan, the
Vatican finally mandated that Theological Studies publish — unedited —
an essay coauthored by Ryan and theologian Germain Grisez titled
“Indissoluble Marriage: A Reply to Kenneth Himes and James Coriden.”
Ryan is professor of moral theology at the seminary of Mount St.
Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Md.; Grisez is emeritus professor of
Christian ethics at Mount St. Mary’s University.
In their essay the authors offer a vigorous defense of church
teaching on marriage, saying it can never be changed.
“At the risk of
seeming presumptuous, we will argue that substantive revision is indeed
impossible,” they write, criticizing Himes and Coriden’s arguments.
It is not unusual for Theological Studies to publish a reply to an
essay. Normally, however, such replies run half the length or less of
the original essay.
The Ryan and Grisez reply is an exception, running
the length of a full article.
Schultenover took over as editor in chief at Theological Studies in
January 2006, succeeding Jesuit Fr. Michael Fahey, who served 10 years
in the position.
Theological Studies says it has subscribers in some 80
countries.
It has a Jesuit board of directors and 13 editorial
consultants who assist Schultenover by reading and helping to choose
manuscripts.
The journal says it typically receives some 200 unsolicited
submissions yearly, of which some 35 are published.
This is not the first time the Vatican has placed significant
pressure on a U.S.-based Jesuit publication.
In May 2005, Jesuit Fr.
Thomas J. Reese, editor of America magazine, resigned at the request of
his order following years of pressure for his ouster from the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In that instance, the
Vatican also said America had strayed too far from official church
teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment