Instruction on the Ecclesiastical Vocation of the Theologian

by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Genres: Theology

32 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1990

About the author

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), previously known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and sometimes simply called the Holy Office is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia of The Catholic Church. Among the most active of these major Curial departments, it oversees Catholic doctrine. The CDF is the modern name for what used to be the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Reviews

[Rory Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

At just under 9000 words this is a long essay by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) which was trying to solve a problem within Catholic theology in 1990.

The problem revolves around the role of a Theologian.

On the one hand theology is an academic discipline, so the role of the theologian is determined by the methodological rules of academic rigour (paragraph 12).

But on the other hand, a Church theologian also has a role defined by what it means to be part of the Church. An essential element of Jesus’ message is his command to live in ‘unity,’ preserving the unity of life and doctrine illustrated in Acts 2.42 (paragraph 39).

So, whilst theologians have to be academically rigorous, they also have to work to preserve the unity of the Church. They cannot do that, if they are dissenting from Church teachings and thus fostering disunity.

However, the document is at pains to insist that this does not mean that theologians have to surrender their thinking and mindlessly repeat the party line. Sometimes a theologian’s difficulties may help the Church to better understand and express its teachings, so theologians should dialogue with Church leaders when they are in disagreement (albeit not in the Media).

Ultimately, if a theologian cannot reconcile their theology with the theology of the Church, they have a duty to “suffer in silence”, certain that God will ensure that Truth will always prevail (paragraph 31). If they do not do this, they are potentially mis-representing the faith to Church members, and undermining the unity which Jesus called for.

Although the document does not use this analogy, it seems to be comparing theologians to employees. Employees can think and express themselves, but they must always do so within the loyalty owed to their employer. If they feel strongly that their employer is wrong, then employees have a choice. They can stay with the employer and be silent. Or they can leave the employer and be critical. What they cannot do, morally (and legally) is remain an employee whilst simultaneously publicly criticising their employer.

The document does not use that analogy, and the analogy doesn’t quite fit the scenario, but the document is certainly trying to stress that being a Church theologian carries duties and responsibilities of loyalty, over and above those of a non-Church theologian.

Overall the document provides reasons and argues coherently to its conclusion. Personally I would have preferred it to have been a little shorter and sharper in places, but other readers may prefer the more meditative style.

Not every reader will agree with the conclusion, but everyone should be able to appreciate that the document provides a clear statement of its conclusion.

[Nelson Sanchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lays out the proper role of the Theologian within the church. In clear terms, defines how “dissent” is to be handled in order to prevent confusion among the faithful and potentially establishing a “parallel magisterium” which opposes the church’s teaching authority.

With Catholics becoming increasingly catechized by online Theologians, it is important that we hold those theologians accountable to the Church’s magisterium regarding how to properly dissent.