Who Watches the Watchmen?
In my previous post, I laid out some simple criteria for interpreting the authoritativeness of ecclesiastical pronouncements. Now it’s time for little ol’ subversive me to tip over the nicely organized bookshelf on which these authoritative texts are housed.
One of the roles of the Magisterium within the Catholic Church is to provide the authoritative and definitive interpretation of the deposit of faith, but in so doing, the magisterial body produces texts. These texts tend to be less polysemic and less ambiguous than the writings of Sacred Scripture, but they’re still texts, written in language, calling for interpretation—for the productive articulation of their meaning. Interpretation does more than disclose meaning; it produces it. Interpretation results in a new text—thought, spoken, or written—and therefore new meaning.
When disagreement about an author’s intended meaning arises, an ecclesiastical authority may clarify what he had meant in the previous text, and by this clarification, he produces a new text. Yet even this new, perhaps clearer text still calls for the productive interpretation of its meaning by others. And these others may or may not have magisterial authority. In either case, there is no Magisterium of the Magisterium, to borrow an expression from a friend. And even if there were, this second authoritative body would still produce texts. Who would magisterially interpret them?
If there’s a lesson here, it’s not that magisterial authorities serve no useful function, for even if their pronouncements and clarifications do not bring an end to the hermeneutic circle, their words have intelligible and communicative meaning. Disagreement about meaning may ensue when the authority speaks, but this disagreement only makes sense given a certain degree of agreement about what the authority has said. No, the lesson, I wager, is that magisterial authorities function to give rise to thought and to new interpretations. Interpretation doesn’t end with authoritative declarations; it continues, albeit with guidance and direction.
In other words, within the Catholic Church (assuming its account), truth comes not only through authoritative teaching and interpretation, but also through the interpretations of those authoritative texts by others within the Church. Even with magisterial authorities, the Church remains in ongoing, creative dialogue concerning the truth—what it means, to what it refers, and how it should be lived.
Comments are closed.
Q: Who watches the watchmen?
A: The watchwomen.
Sam
Of course, I am sure that everyone knows that for most of the Church’s history, this was even a moot question. For Magisterial teachings and documents were often literally stopped at the border and not introduced into the culture at all. You could say the royal power “watched” the Church’s teachings by not allowing them at all. Now it seems realistically no one watches them. Except maybe Wikileaks.
I agree with your point that the Magisterium is a living entity in terms of interpretation. But there are certainly some pronouncements by the Magisterium that leave (or SHOULD leave) no doubt or ambiguity that would subject them to differing interpretation. For example, the conclusion of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Anyone who, after reading that, still insists that the Church does not hold that ordination of women is not only impermissible, but impossible is simply wrong.
Let’s run a gedanken experiment which addresses both this text and Kyle’s broader questions. Suppose irrefutable archeological evidence were found that showed that in antiquity women were ordained priests in some locations. How are we to interpret this text?
David,
As conservative as you seem on some questions, I am amazed that you pose this question. There have been many contradictory finds on all sorts of issues, and the Catholic Church continues to assert its right to construe history (and we include scriptural history with that) entirely in light of Sacred Tradition. It means that such discoveries would have no real meaning at all. It is a closed circle already.
Glad to confuse you. Lots of people look at my picture (or me in person) and assume I am liberal. I am neither a good liberal nor a good conservative.
With regards to your point: yet, Sacred Tradition to the contrary, the earth does move around the sun, and the Church eventually got around to accepting this fact. So the circle is not permanently closed.
Good response!
I’ve heard there’s some debate about the capacity from which this declaration was made that may have ramifications for how certain and definitive the declaration is: was he speaking as an administrator or as a teacher or in some other way? And does this even matter? There’s also debate about exactly how many dogmas the Church has defined ex cathedra. Or so I hear. Anyhow, even when you have as much clarity as humanly possible, uncertainty has a way of creeping in and making interpretation, well, interesting.
Dear Kyle,
I think that I see what you are saying. One example might be Dupanloup’s useful reading of the Syllabus of Errors, which, after all, was never contradicted by Pius IX.
Let us suppose that there is “disagreement” about the “intended meaning” of a Magisterial text. There are two possibilities:
A. There are two readings of the Magisterial text. One reading is more probable, but we cannot be certain that it is the only reading. (A recent example might be the question of whether “subsistit in” means that we can speak of the Church of Christ as present and operative in churches and ecclesial communities that are not in communion with Rome.)
B. The Magisterial text is unclear. (An example that has been discussed in this blog is the designation of slavery as intrinsically immoral in Veritatis Splendor – what is meant by “slavery” here? We can also add Magisterial texts that seem outdated, especially in historically analysis.)
It strikes me that in situation A, an authoritative interpretation produces “new meaning” insofar as it simply adds decisive weight to a probable reading. We cumulatively move to something like certainty.
In situation B, an authoritative interpretation produces “new meaning” by adding to the text. Our move to certainty doesn’t proceed by accumulation, but through a direct judgment on this addition. Thus, in situation B, an authoritative interpretation requires similar Magisterial authority to the original text.
Thanks.
Neil
I’d say anytime a new text is written (or simply spoken, to use the word “text” broadly) and is not merely a repetition of an old text, new meaning is produced.
But this is a question of what sort of “new meaning” is produced. And I do think that this is an important question.
Interpreter X directs you to look closely at an unexamined part of an encyclical. Perhaps she tells you to read the encyclical again, with a specific historical context in mind. Obviously, a “new meaning” for you might be produced. However, Interpreter A does not herself have to possess any “magisterial” authority, because she simply points to something that is “in” the text. Furthermore, she presumably is speaking as part of a larger interpretive community.
This is likely to be the case if the encyclical comes as an intervention into a mature debate between theological schools. The positions are clear and the language is recognizable. (Obviously, interpretation is still necessary.)
Interpreter Y, on the other hand, grasps that an encyclical is vague, incomplete, or innovative – that is, that the encyclical requires further development. Interpreter Y interprets the encyclical by responding to it. Perhaps he illustrates what it might mean to form a commercial entity based on “mutualist principles,” “pursuing social ends,” although precise examples are not given in the encyclical itself. Perhaps he – a priest – describes what John Paul II meant by the “cosmic” character of the Eucharist by adding his own experiences of celebrating the Eucharist in “varied scenarios.” The illustrations are all “answerable” to the original encylical, but they cannot be said to be “in” it.
For Interpreter Y’s interpretations to have weight, he needs to have some degree of “magisterial” authority. His interpretations require him to “invest his own being” in them (Steiner).
We have more need of Interpreter Y if encyclicals and other forms of magisterial authority are likely to be vague, incomplete or innovative – that is, if they form a discourse that is disconnected from and unaccountable to theological schools. (And this seems to have been the case since the early 1800s.)
PPF @ 3:44:
So, you ascribe to the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” school of churchianity?
Jimmy Mac,
Do you mean that I “subscribe” to the view that religions must be made up of unquestioning fools?? If that is what you mean, no. There are plenty of people who don’t believe in anything that are tendentiously committed to some shred of dogma or aesthetics they hold dear, quite unrelated to religion. So I certainly do not assess them necessarily as better in any way than the religionist who clings to the religion of birth.
What matters is how you handle being questioned. Being annoyed is OK. But wishing destruction on the world because you don’t get your way, is the sign of spiritual infantalization and even insanity. But in fact that is how many Catholics right-wingers are operating today. Just this evening I watched EWTN’s weekly pseudo-news show, and one Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn was on, spouting predictable reactionary baloney. That is not particularly interesting at this point. But what is noteworthy is that when he had to address the possibility that everything is not going his way, he quickly interpolated the notion that the “demise” of our society and civilization may be “sooner than we think” . This is a nihilistic trope of these right-wingers and it is very disturbing to any person of goodwill. He does not get his way on gay rights in New York, and next thing he is temporizing on the demise of civil order,and all the mayhem and destruction and suffering that would bring. What kind of person is this DiMarzio, saying this crazy nihiliisitic nonsense?? Has he no shame?? Clearly not a person of goodwill towards his fellow man. That such a person should be commenting on the morals of others is hilarious. He cannot even think morally when questioned in the simplest way.
The problem of Interpreter Y requiring some degree of “magisterial” authority explains, I think, some interesting features of contemporary Catholicism.
1. The need for a large number of “official” saints, who are often named at great cost. Saints can be “officially” said to have participated in divine things. Thus, their interpretations have a certain degree of “magisterial” authority.
2. The need for certain interpreters to claim “orthodoxy” or certain related things – total loyalty to the church, complete adherence to tradition. All of these things give one a vicarious form of “magisterial” authority.
Thanks.
Actually my last comment should be appended to the thread above it. Sorry.
Neil