Sir, – I welcome the clear affirmation by Dr Thomas Finegan (Letters, August 29th) that doctrinal development in the Catholic Church involves doctrinal change, and that this applies to morals as well as faith. I welcome too his concern that this kind of change should take place in a way consistent with the church’s own self-understanding, giving due weight to scripture, tradition, teaching authority and, I would add, a reading of the “signs of the times” and attention to the “sense of the faithful”. His thoughtful contribution can move the current discussion on to questions concerning the scope and limits of this change.
A useful resource in exploring these questions further is the document issued by the International Theological Commission (2014), under the aegis of then-prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, on The Sense of Faith in the Life of the Church. The commission draws attention to times where there is a clash between current church teaching and the sense of faith of the faithful (exactly the kind of situation which the Irish synthesis document has identified in some teaching on gender and sexuality). In such a situation it may be that there is a too facile assimilation on the part of the faithful to the ambient culture, and, if so, this needs correction. But it may also be that the teaching itself is insufficiently rooted in consultation with the faith experience of the faithful, and needs to be “clarified” or “reformulated”. As a theologian Dr Finegan is aware of this, and notes in addition, true to the practice of Pope Francis, the case for change which involves the “pastoral application” of authoritative teaching. But he will also be aware of the analysis by the commission’s document of the role of theologians in spelling out what are still “open questions” in church teaching and in identifying “in which areas a revision of previous positions is needed”. Various correspondents over the past 10 days or so have given copious historical examples of issues where church teaching has indeed been changed in a way that goes beyond clarification or even reformulation to include a significant element of revision. There are good reasons to support the view that the areas identified in the Irish synthesis are indeed “open questions”, and that current church teaching in those areas is in principle open to a development that entails revision. – Yours, etc,
GERRY O’HANLON, SJ
Dublin 10.