Archbishop Fernandez’s clarification

Recently, itwas announced that Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez would become the newprefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).  As I noted in anarticle last week, Pope Francis has stated that he wants the DDF under thenew prefect to operate in a “very different” way than it has in the past, when “possibledoctrinal errors were pursued.”  Thearchbishop himself has said that he wants the DDF to pursue “dialogue” and to avoid“persecutions and condemnations” or “the imposition of a single way of thinking.”  He also indicated that he took this to mark adifference from the way the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as theDDF was known until recently) has operated in recent decades.  As I argued in the article, the logicalimplication of the pope’s and archbishop’s words seemed to be that the DDF wouldlargely no longer be exercising its traditional teaching function. 

However, in aninterview with The Pillar yesterday,the archbishop was asked whether the DDF would move away from its traditionalrole in safeguarding doctrine, and he answered:

Look, if you read the pope's lettercarefully, it is clear that at no time does he say that the function ofrefuting errors should disappear.

Obviously, if someone says that Jesusis not a real man or that all immigrants should be killed, that will requirestrong intervention.

But at the same time, that[intervention] can be an opportunity to grow, to enrich our understanding.

For example, in those cases, it wouldbe necessary to accompany that person in their legitimate intention to bettershow the divinity of Jesus Christ, or it will be necessary to talk about someimperfect, incomplete or problematic immigration legislation.

In the letter, the pope says veryexplicitly that the dicastery has to “guard” the teaching of the Church.  Only that at the same time – and this is hisright – he asks me for a greater commitment to help the development of thought,such as when difficult questions arise, because growth is more effective thancontrol.

Heresies were eradicated better andfaster when there was adequate theological development, and they spread andperpetuated when there were only condemnations.

But Francis also asks me to helpcollect the recent magisterium, and this evidently includes his own.  It is part of what must be “guarded.”

Endquote.  It is only just to acknowledgethat these words clearly state that the DDF’s traditional function of rebutting“possible doctrinal errors” will notbe abandoned.  All well and good.

However, thesenew comments make the significance of the earlier ones I quoted in my previousarticle less clear, not more.  For thepope and the archbishop indicated that they want the DDF to operate in a way thatis “very different” from the way it has operated in recent decades.  But if the DDF is going to continue with its “functionof refuting errors,” including “strong intervention” to rebut those who promotesuch errors, how does that differ from how the CDF operated in recent decades?

Presumablythe answer has to do with an emphasis on “accompanying” the person guilty ofthe errors, rather than “only condemnations.” But this too is not in fact a departure from the way the CDF operatedunder prefects like cardinals Ratzinger, Levada, Müller, and Ladaria.  For example, though Ratzinger was caricaturedin the liberal press as a “panzer cardinal,” that is the opposite of how heactually ran the CDF.  As hecomplained in 1988:

The mythical harshness of the Vaticanin the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere emptywords.  Up until now, in fact, onlywarnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonicalpenalties in the strict sense.

For instance,theologian Edward Schillebeeckx was investigated by the CDF under Ratzinger,for Schillebeeckx’s dubious Christological opinions – precisely the sort ofthing Archbishop Fernandez offers as an example of an error the DDF should dealwith.  But Schillebeeckx was given theopportunity to explain and defend his views, and his books were nevercondemned.  More famously, Hans Küng losthis license to teach Catholic theology because of his heterodox views on papalinfallibility and other matters.  But he continuedteaching at the same university and remained a priest in good standing.  So far was he from being “condemned” by theChurch that one of Ratzinger’s first acts after being elected Pope Benedict XVIwas to invite Küng over for a friendly dinner and theological conversation.

In reality,the person dealt with most harshly by the CDF under Ratzinger was not aprogressive, but rather someone with whom Ratzinger was accused of being toosympathetic – namely, the traditionalist Archbishop Lefebvre, who was excommunicatedin 1988.  And it is preciselytraditionalists whom PopeFrancis has also dealt with most harshly during his own pontificate.  Indeed, Pope Francis’s treatment oftraditionalists seems the reverse of what Archbishop Fernandez characterizes asan “accompanying” rather than “condemning” approach.

Hence, whilethe archbishop’s most recent remarks are welcome, they make the import of hisearlier remarks, and the pope’s, murkier rather than clearer.  In any event, if a patient and charitableapproach to dealing with doctrinal disputes is what the archbishop is after,then PopeBenedict XVI in fact provided a model to emulate rather than abandon.  And Pope Francis too provides something of aroadmap, insofar as hehas many times said that he welcomes respectful criticism. 

ArchbishopFernandez ends the interview by asking for prayers as he takes up his new post,and makes clear that he would be “grateful” for the prayers of his critics noless than those of his supporters.  It wouldbe most contrary to justice and charity for anyone to refuse this humblerequest, and I happily offer up my own prayers for the archbishop.