What is the Purpose of Theology? The Controversy Continues
For those who don’t understand the rigors of academic publishing and therefore might not understand the gravity of what I’m about to discuss, it is important to appreciate that regardless of your academic field (biology, psychology, theology, philosophy, education, history and so on), the standard for the highest level of research and publishing is what is known as peer-review or refereeing. It is a process by which scholars submit an article to an academic journal for consideration to published.
After the editor or editorial board initially vet the piece, deciding whether or not the subject matter and style, even this early on, is a serious consideration for a given journal, the editor will send the manuscript to (usually) two “peer reviewers,” that is scholars who are experts in the field about which the article is written. This is known as a blind process, neither the reviewers nor the author know who each other are (hence the “blind” descriptor) – only the editor knows. These reviewers read with great detail the scholarship and make recommendations first as to whether the article should be published and second as to what changes or revisions should be made.
It is an intense and rigorous process that generally takes several months. It is also a fair process, because the scholarship is not judged based on the “name” or “reputation” of its author, but solely on the quality of the scholarship itself. I have been through this process several times now and have had the great privilege of having several articles published or accepted for publication in some of the top theological journals (my examples include: The Heythrop Journal, Worshop, Cistercian Studies Quarterly, The Downside Review, among others). While I have not had the great honor of having my work published in Theological Studies, I — like most students and professors — know that this journal follows suit in upholding the rigorous academic process of peer-review, a system that safeguards the integrity of the publication and the soundness of the scholarship published within.
That is, until this summer.
Yesterday, the National Catholic Reporter published an article online titled, “The Vatican Pressures Theology Journal,” in which we read about the latest in the ongoing controversy surrounding the purpose of theology in the Church. It wasn’t enough that Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap., recently advocated for theology’s purpose to more closely resemble catechetical repetition (see “‘Fides Quaerens Nihilum’: Weinandy’s Vision of Theology“), but now there appears to be at least one example of a far-reaching intrusion into the practice of theology. And one that extends far beyond a single Capuchin preaching his own theological method to a small group of like-minded theologians.
This incident was included in the homily of a respected ecclesiologist who presided over our community Mass last evening, a well-known theologian in the United States who is both a friend of Fr. Jim Coriden and a fellow Franciscan to Fr. Ken Himes, OFM, the co-authors of the article at the heart of this intrusive controversy. Yesterday’s presider likened the witness of true theological enterprise, like that of Coriden and Himes, to the evangelical witness of John the Baptist, whose beheading we celebrated that day. Like John the Baptist, theologians and all ministers in the Church are called, he said, to live with integrity, following truth.
I know both of these authors personally. One has been my Canon Law professor — and recepient this very year of the CTSA’s “John Courtney Murray Award,” the highest award the theological society gives — and the other is my Franciscan confrere. Both men are intelligent, faithful and dedicated to ministry in the Church, to academic study of theology and Canon Law, and take very seriously the responsibility bestowed on them by virtue of their ministry and their scholarship. They are both considered top in their fields, Coriden in Canon Law and Himes in theological ethics (Himes is both a past CTSA president and the recent Chair of the department of theology at Boston College).
What has launched the Vatican’s “pressure” (as it is described in the NCR), was an article Coriden and Himes wrote in 2004 titled, “The Indissolubility of Marriage: Reasons to Reconsider.” That there might be sound theological and even canonical reasons for reconsideration of a disciplinary and theological practice — namely, the need for the declaration of “annulment” in certain cases, because valid and licit marriages could not be dissolved according to Church teaching — was apparently too much for some to bear. Here is the summary of the situation, as reported by the NCR:
The essay, which appeared in the June 2011 issue of the quarterlyTheological 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.
Now what seems to be operating beneath the surface-level (and deeply troubling) meddling with sound academic processes of scholarship and research is a confusion about what the purpose of theology really is. To shed light on this, I turn to the renowned ecclesiologist, now at Boston College, Richard Gaillardetz. In his introduction to Robert Nugent’s excellent new book, Silence Speaks: Teilhard de Chardin, Yves Congar, John Courtney Murray and Thomas Merton (Paulist Press, 2011), Gaillardetz writes:
The work of the theological community is, by its nature, more tentative and experimental than that of the bishops. It is oriented toward (1) deepening the church’s ongoing reception of the faith and (2) raising new questions and illuminating new contexts for the dynamic reception of the faith. Given the inherently provisional and experimental character of most theological reflection, when a theologian publishes a work, the assumption ought not to be that she is offering the final word on a topic, but that she is offering a fresh theological investigation to the theological community for its assessment.
I should pause here to highlight that what Gaillardetz is talking about here is precisely the purpose of academic or professional theological journals. What Himes and Coriden were doing was precisely this form of intellectual research and presentation. Gaillardetz continues:
Anyone who has attended a serious theological conference knows that the community of theologians takes this responsibility very seriously. Major theological contributions are invariably subject to intense academic scrutiny. The best theologians welcome the critical conversation that ensues upon the publication of their views, seeing each publication, not as a definitive pronouncement, but as the contribution toward a larger work in progress. Those who argue that the magisterium has an obligation to take an aggressive, interventionist stance in policing the work of theologians overlook the effective way in which the theological community assesses its own productions.
While I remain confused about the decision-making process within the Theological Studies editorial board discussions and its (as well as the Jesuit Order more broadly) dialogue with the CDF that led to this rebuttal’s non-refereed publication, I don’t think that the long-term reputation of Theological Studies is at all in jeopardy. But this does raise serious questions about the integrity of Catholic theology and scholarship. Such an interventionist approach really risks diminishing the soundness of legitimate theological dialogue, critique and development.
August 30, 2011 at 8:38 am
You make a very good point, Dan. A scholarly journal, like Theological Studies, is intended for a limited readership: those who study and teach Theology. The articles, which most non-theologians would find difficult to read and digest, are intended for those with a foundation of theological understanding. As you point out, Dan, the articles are primarily for ‘peer review’, to get a discussion going on a particular topic. Conversation among professional theologians is the goal. There is little danger of anyone being ‘lead astray’ or ‘scandalized’ by these conversations.
The institutional leadership in our Church, at this time in history, is reactionary and, I personally think, panic-driven. The recent case of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson is a painful example of this narcissistic paranoia. I would not be at all surprised if Fr. Thomas Weinandy, the USCCB’s theological consultant, was a part of the process that lead the Vatican to put this pressure on the Jesuit editors of Theological Studies. All of this goes on while we are losing a lot of our people, who find all of this irrelevant. If the Pew Forum’s survey on Religion in America last year is accurate, we have lost one-third of our American Catholics, and that percentage would be even higher if they had not included the recent waves of Hispanic Catholic immigrants. These are painful times….
August 30, 2011 at 8:42 am
From what I’ve read, comments-wise, by Patrick Madrid and Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf the National Catholic Reporter is a bit of a dodgy source for accurate Catholic news. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick down here in South Africa?
August 30, 2011 at 10:27 am
Dan,
A very interesting well written and thoughtful post. The spokes
person for the USCCB tried to do the same thing within the past few weeks to discourage Catholic theologians from scholarly thinking and writing. I know of Ken Himes and Jim Coriden. I personally know Charlie Curren. They along with Sr. Elizabeth Johnson are good thoughtful well intentioned men and women. The Vatican has a long history of trying to silence those who think differently. Later they had to retract what was previously condemned.
Thanks for this post. I hope you get a good response from other readers.
Pax et Bonum,
Bill
August 30, 2011 at 11:15 am
Joseph,
You’re getting the wrong end of the stick, as you say. Neither of the people you mentioned are reliable sources of news. I would suggest America magazine (www.americamagazine.org) or Commonweal magazine (www.commonwealmagazine.org). Both are fine Catholic magazines that present more than one side of any issue. You would do well to forget Patrick Madrid and Father Z … both of them present only one side of things — theirs — and claim that only their view is the “true” Catholic view.
August 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Joseph, you are not getting the wrong end of the stick. Don’t forget Patrick Madrid and Fr. Zuhlsdorf. They provide valuable commentary that helps readers of the NCR, Commenweal, America, et al., to have a broader perspective and thereby come to appreciate the truth.
Anyway, let’s have some Catholic theologian respond to Grisez and Ryan. I thought that was how theologians were supposed to operate. I would also like to hear how or why the Grisez and Ryan article was considered unfit to print, if that was actually the conclusion reached by the editor of TS. The only criticism, if it can be called that, I could find in the NCR article is that it is as long as the original Coriden-Himes article.
August 31, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Dear Dan, Just a point of clarification — my understanding is that it wasn’t the editors of TS as such that found the Ryan article (Grisez was not a co-author of the original response piece), but the so-called “blind” or anonymous peer-reviewers who examine the submitted manuscript without authorial attribution, considering it solely on its scholarly merits. While length of manuscript submission is sometimes a consideration, and that would often-times be something reviewers and/or the editors would require be addressed in the MS revision if the piece was conditionally accepted for publication, my knowledgeable assumption is that it has more to do with the structure, content and sources of the response piece that led to the rejection decision.
August 31, 2011 at 8:46 pm
You lost me at, “For those that don’t understand the rigors of academic publishing…” (lol)
September 8, 2011 at 1:33 am
[...] interest in this conflict, as it directly impacts our work and our writing (Br. Dan Horan has two pieces at his blog worth reading while we’re on the topic). I’m sure there will be more to [...]