UNITY AND SUBMISSION

 Promoting the Unity of Faith

  Vatican II’s “Unitatis Redintergratio” decree on Ecumenism was an important step towards better relations between the various Christian communities. Pope Paul VI promulgated his “New Instruction for promoting Christian Unity” on 25th. May 1972. This Instruction contains some very definite norms for Catholic-Protestant relationship. It notes that in spite of disunity, there are many things in common, e.g. Scripture, the life of grace, Faith, hope, Charity, the interior gifts of the Spirit, and other visible elements. Through these factors the various Christian communities can contribute to the mystery of man’s salvation. The practical demands for fostering unity may be stated as follows:
- Church renewal through fidelity to the Church’s calling, doctrine and discipline, humility and service;
- ecumenical education for all Christians that they may know other Christians, and to know what divides and what unites;
- dialogue, which presupposes knowledge of one’s own faith, openness and authoritative guidance and competence;
- cooperation in social matters;
- public and private prayer.

Submission to the Teaching Authority of the Church

 “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10, 16). Christ has entrusted the custody and proclamation of revelation to the Church so that the salvific truths of his life, death and resurrection would remain historically present in the world. The implication is that the believer must accept and submit to the authority of the Church. The supreme doctrinal authority is the college of bishops with and under the Pope. Common sense tells us that they can claim greater competence than the individual believer. Their doctrinal and moral decisions carry special weight and merit special assent. In Mt 16, 18ff, Peter is assured against darkness and error; the Holy Spirit is the effective guarantor of this protection (cf. Jn 14, 16ff; 15, 26; 16, 13; Act 1, 8; 2, 2-4).
 This teaching authority reaches over the whole content of Christian revelation and the other truths that touch matters of faith and morals. An absolute assent of divine faith – “assensus fidei” – is given to truths proclaimed infallibly. This absolute assent is ascribed to the theological virtue of Faith. In order to demand such an assent more than mere moral unanimity of the episcopacy is needed, i.e. the doctrine must be propounded as to be held definitively (cf. L G 25). Mere practical universality of a faith-related doctrine is not enough for an absolute assent, any more than the fact that it has been carried as irreformable without perceptible contradiction for a long time. Thus the teaching about Limbo – hardly remembered now – has been shown to be problematic or unrealistic or erroneous or unsound.

 In the case of non-infallible pronouncements, there can be instances in which certain members of the Christian community withhold their assent, and with good reason. In general, the authentic, non-infallible Magisterium of the bishops and popes calls for a religious assent that is inspired by the virtues of filial piety and obedience. Such an assent has formal certitude that excludes the prudent fear of error, and offers the basis for safe action. Though it is a loyal openness to the teaching authority, it does not prejudice the freedom of investigation and articulate discussion with a view to revising a particular teaching. This religious assent can also co-exist with reverential silence – “silentium obsequium” – in the case when someone’s inner conviction does not permit a perfect internal assent.

Infallibly defined moral teaching?

 There seems to be general agreement that there has not been an instance of an infallibly defined moral teaching. However, this does not mean that the current teachings on morality are unreasonable and worthless; there should be no diminution of due respect to their normative character, even though they admit of different degrees in the way they are proclaimed. For example, an encyclical letter is more solemn than a papal allocution, and a “moto proprio” is stronger than an encyclical. Basically, where specifically moral cases and moral norms are concerned, the episcopal magisterium remains normative and functions within the pastoral domain by making judgements of prudence, and as such, they deserve the presumption of certainty on the part of the faithful. The reasons for this presumption may be stated as follows:
(i) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for guiding the Magisterium;
(ii) the sources of moral wisdom are many and complex, e.g. Scripture, the teaching of theologians, past and present, scientific information, broad human experience, the witness of morally good lives, etc.. It is surely hard for any one individual to put them together in order to make a sound moral judgement;
(iii) the episcopal moral magisterium  approaches moral issues with the concern to protect and improve the human community;
(iv) the Episcopal moral Magisterium can draw upon worldwide resources to overcome the biases of particular cultures when putting a perspective together and taking a moral stand.
The above reasons make the episcopal magisterium credible and deserving of respect. Apart from this, we should remember the human situations are not so complex that each time we have a new moral norm. We don’t have to “invent the wheel” each time, and life would be intolerable if there were no continuity from one situation to another. Some moral theologians forget this. They seem to be busy with complex situations that they make sound unique, whereas there is sufficient continuity in human experience to make moral norms reliable guides for moral behaviour.
As a counterpoint, we reiterate the possibility of legitimate dissent and the right of subjecting the formulations of the magisterium to scientific analysis. The alternative position, for instance, can offer new knowledge for the formulation of conscience. A moral conclusion is based on the reasons which support it, and not on the office or prestige of those who propose it. There is also the legitimate use of probabilism, which is a tribute to human freedom in matters of conscience. The stance of honest and responsible dissent figured prominently as a response to “Humanae Vitae”, 25 July 1968, by many episcopal conferences. The vigour of the moral theology of the encyclical was somewhat reduced in some of these episcopal declarations, for instance, in those of the Dutch, French, Canadian, Indonesian, Austrian, etc.
Pastoral Comment
 Christian moral decision making is the work of continuous translation: translating the insights derived from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ into the situations we find ourselves in. The work of translation is not a private activity, but is done in relation to the whole Church in every age. Pastors are duty bound to teach their people the Church’s doctrine and then leave them to implement the teaching in their work-a-day lives. Sometimes the situations they have to face are out of the ordinary. In such cases they will be called upon to put into practice the teaching anew, and, perhaps, with great cost to themselves. It is then more urgent for pastors to see that the decisions they take are in accordance with authentic doctrine. And even though their decisions are necessarily subjective, they should be the implementation of objective principles. The pastors’ duty is to examine and vindicate the objective morality of their people’s individual choices. Ultimately, every choice is individual-situational-subjective, but it need not be arbitrarily motivated. Sincerely desiring to do the good, the individual remains open to more information and better solutions. Pastors must respect the individual’s sincere judgment whilst inviting them to keep their minds attuned to the Church’s teaching.
The Practical Authority of the Church covers the area of ecclesiastical discipline, liturgical prescriptions, administrative measures and ecclesiastical laws. This area appeals to the submission of the will, not necessarily to the intellectual assent of the mind or of faith. Here there is no proclamation of the truth directly, but only the question of usefulness, judiciousness, and sound policy. The Catholic is bound to obey the prescriptions even though he does not find them felicitous or fortunate. Here it is a matter of submission with due respect.