My sheep hear my voice. And I know them: and they follow me. (John 10:27)
Every self-identified Christian is familiar with this verse. I wonder how many have considered the fact that Our Lord is speaking in the present tense, i.e., His words go hand-in-hand with the promise that He made shortly before His glorious Ascension:
And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:20)
This should move one to ask: How exactly is the voice of the Good Shepherd made manifest in our own day? How does the Lord guide His flock – right here, right now – showing us how to avoid danger amid the various trials and tribulations, conundrums and complications, of contemporary life?
The majority of Catholics will immediately think of the Roman Pontiff, or the sacred Magisterium more broadly, i.e., those who formally exercise the Church’s teaching office in union with him, whether it be in an extraordinary, or ordinary, manner.
Indeed, the voice of the Good Shepherd speaks across the ages whenever the Successors of the Apostles teach on matters of faith and morals in union with the Bishop of Rome. One might also think of faithful priests who, as the bishops’ helpers, also tend to the Lord’s flock, preaching, teaching, and offering direction.
Then there are the various Roman Congregations that are entrusted by the Holy Father with the task of issuing various declarations and decisions, often in response to questions regarding present day conditions. According to Fr. Ludwig Ott, such statements are “normally to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.” (cf Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 10)
So far so good, but it seems that very few self-identified Catholics – including those who claim to reside on the traditional end of the spectrum – also recognize (much less give proper deference to) the crucial role played by the Church’s venerable theologians in making the voice of the Good Shepherd audible to His sheep.
Theologians, however, provide an indispensable service to those who wish to believe, to think, and to live in the light of authentic Catholic teaching, safely within the one true Sheepfold that is the Church.
Indispensable? How so?
Let’s be honest, it’s often not easy for even a well-formed layman (and no small number of clerics as well) to accurately interpret magisterial texts in the light of Divine Revelation, e.g., conciliar decrees, papal encyclicals, even certain statements issued by the Roman Congregations, etc. This is where the work of the well-trained theologian comes into play, elucidating and contextualizing the Church’s teaching acts, so they may be understood by all in a manner that is consonant with the true faith.
So, what constitutes a theologian upon whom one can safely rely in such matters?
In our day – that is, in the “communion with Francis” conciliar milieu – the letters STD, PhD, or DPhil after one’s name, or the title “Father” or “Bishop” (including “of Rome”) before it, offers little assurance. Do some in this crowd occasionally teach well on certain topics? Sure, but good luck finding one that can be trusted to do so in a general sense.
Very often, these men are at odds with one another on matters of great importance (some of which have been long since settled), leaving the unwitting faithful to act as their own rule of faith in determining what is true and what is false, what is safe and what is not, as if we were left orphans.
It should go without say, especially for regular readers of this space, but I’ll say it just the same:
In order for a theological work to be considered trustworthy, one has no choice but to focus on content produced by the pre-conciliar theologians alone.
Prior to Vatican Council II, the Holy Office was diligent in rooting out and censoring theological error from works purporting to disseminate Catholic teaching. Moreover, at that time, insofar as individual theological works are concerned, one could put stock in the imprimatur of a bishop, or the imprimi potest of a religious superior, as an assurance that they contain nothing erroneous in matters of faith and morals.
This vetting process is not just useful, it’s what makes theology truly Catholic. Without it, the body of work produced by a theologian, despite any Catholic claims, must be viewed with caution, as little more than a collection of religious editorials. Might it contain some beneficial insights? Sure, but it might just as well contain the leaven of error too.
Catholic theologians by contrast – that is to say, pre-conciliar theologians – “do not carry on their work through divine right, but through delegation of the Church, and hence remain subject to the vigilance and authority of the legitimate Teaching Authority.” (cf, Pope Pius XII, Di Gran Cuore Vi Diamo, 1956) [Emphasis added]
These pre-co conciliar theologians are often referred to as the Church’s “approved theologians.” Their works are frequently described as theological manuals. As such, they are often referred to as “manualists” as well.
With the proliferation of self-appointed theologians cluttering social media, many of whom have exactly no theological training at all, it seems that most Catholics – so-called “traditionalists” among them – have lost sight of the vital contribution made by the Church’s approved theologians in making the voice of the Good Shepherd heard and understood.
Consider the Catholic Encyclopedia’s description of the theologian:
Theologians as such do not form a part of the teaching Church, but as professional expounders of revealed truth they study it scientifically, they collect and systematize it, they illumine it with all the lights of philosophy, history, etc … Their scientific works are useful for the instruction of those who should spread and popularize the doctrine, put it in circulation, and adapt it to all by speech or writings of every kind. It is evident what marvelous unity is attained on this point alone in ecclesiastical teaching and how the same truth, descended from above, distributed through a thousand different channels, finally comes pure and undefiled to the most lowly and the most ignorant.
Most self-identified Catholics today, it seems, have lost sight of the vital role played by the “most noble office of theology” (Pius XII, Humani Generis) in propagating the Church’s “marvelous unity” of faith. It comes as little surprise, therefore, that lowliness and ignorance concerning ecclesiastical teaching is running rampant, even among persons who posture as champions of tradition.
In some cases, it’s not so much that the contribution of the manualists is unknown, but rather is it dismissed as either outdated or erroneous. One prolific leader of the Resist-the-Pope movement with whom I was engaged in a public exchange of ideas observed that the great Thomist, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “was a man of his age and culture” and, as such, his writing admits of some “real excesses” that need to be “pruned.”
This open disdain for the theological insights of the manualists corrupts not only one’s concept of what is to be believed, but also how one is to behave. The Catholic Encyclopedia further states:
Moral theology, in more than one respect, is essentially a practical science. Its instructions must extend to moral character, moral behavior, the completion and issue of moral aspirations, so that it can offer a definite norm for the complex situations of human life.
One of the complex situations of human life presently weighing heavily on the minds of Catholics concerns the matter of voting.
Here in the U.S., with Presidential campaign season in full swing, “Catholic social media” is overflowing with “traditional” commentators declaring – as if delegated to do so by Holy Mother Church (if not directly by Almighty God Himself) – the non-negotiable duties that are incumbent upon the Catholic voter.
Many of the more vocal among these armchair moralists insist with magisterial confidence that Catholics are strictly forbidden to cast a vote for either the Republican or the Democrat candidate, and those who do so are placing their eternal soul in jeopardy.
Others are professing with a similar air of Catholic confidence that, among the two, one candidate clearly represents GOOD, while the other is the solitary embodiment of EVIL. Some even go so far as to speak of the former in messianic terms, i.e., as if anointed by God for the specific purpose of saving the Republic.
Still others maintain that only certain core issues, to the exclusion of all others, are at stake in this election. As for who gets to define which issues are germane and which are to be treated as practically irrelevant, one finds (surprise, surprise) that they themselves have that distinct privilege!
Once the finite list of core issues is set in stone, they insist that no real difference exists between the two candidates and their platforms, and any Catholic who disagrees with that assessment is either a charlatan or an idiot.
What you will not find on Catholic social media (apart from an exhaustive search) are articles and commentary calling attention to the fact that the Church, via her approved theologians, have addressed the matter of voting in considerable detail, providing the faithful with all of the guidance necessary to safely exercise their respective rights and duties.
In the event that such commentary is encountered, one will find that the moral theologians who have written on this topic are among the most eminent in their field, e.g., Lehmkuhl, Tanquerey, and Prümmer. More recently, theologians with ecclesiastical approbation based in the United States have expounded upon their work in application specifically to the American political process.
And guess what? The self-confident proclamations of the armchair moralists mentioned above find no support in the practical instruction offered by the Church’s approved theologians. Maybe that’s why they are so rarely if ever cited.
In any case, take heart: Orphans, we are not. The voice of the Good Shepherd is still calling out to His sheep, guiding them, even as it concerns their rights and duties in the matter of voting. The questions that remain are simply these:
Do you really want to hear it? If so, are you willing to follow?
For more, see the following:
U.S. Elections: A Battle of the Unworthies
The Morality of Voting: Is it Permissible to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?
