by The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt

Bishop of New Ulm

I have been asked to comment on the work, Revelation and the Church: Vatican II in the Twenty-first Century because it claims to have been co-edited by my predecessor, Bishop Raymond A. Lucker. Actually, the "Preface" explains that Bishop Lucker died before any of the articles were written. But clearly, from the text, the inspiration for the work was his own.

Fundamentally, the book challenges the Church’s own understanding of herself as being authoritatively charged under the direction of the Holy Spirit to teach in the name of Jesus Christ on matters of faith and morals that are not infallibly defined.  Because the issues here transcend the confines of any one diocese, I referred the matter to the Doctrine Committee of the United States Bishops’ Conference, asking them to render a statement on the contents of the work. The Doctrine Committee responded by sending me a book review by a systematic theologian whom they had consulted. Among the comments of this review were the following:

1) While acknowledging that the authors of this volume do not directly oppose the Church’s teaching on the ordination of women or the morality of same-sex unions, nevertheless they follow Bishop Lucker’s lead in calling for a “free and open discussion” on such subjects by “all bishops, theologians and other lay faithful.” The reviewer states:

            “Along with Susan Wood, Bishop Lucker finds the authoritative weight given to this teaching (the 1994 declaration, Ordinatio Sacerdotales) by the Vatican rather dubious ... If I understand his position correctly, he finds it questionable how the magisterium can teach definitively outside of an ecumenical council or an ex-cathedra statement by a pope on a matter that does not touch on the core of revelation. Within Bishop Lucker’s categories, a definitive teaching on matters that pertain to safeguarding the integrity of the deposit of faith – what is traditionally referred to as “secondary object” – would seemingly have to be generated by the extraordinary magisterium. In other words, the issue of women’s ordination ought to have been left for an ecumenical council, in which bishops meet on a certain even-playing field to adjudicate matters of great import for the entire ecclesial body.”

However, as the reviewer goes on to point out:

            “But such self imposed constraints could end up paralyzing the Church at precisely those moments when her voice is needed to defend human dignity and human life against the assaults of technology and certain deleterious trends in the culture.”

2)  The reviewer agrees with Bishop Lucker’s assertion that the faithful should be “consulted” in the development of teaching on faith and morals, but goes on to quote Cardinal Newman’s distinction between

            “ ‘seeking their opinion’ – as if the whole body had specialized knowledge – and determining their deeper resonance, often expressed devotionally, by what is proposed de fide.” He adds that the book tends to downplay the prophetic aspect of a bishop’s ministry.

3)  The reviewer distances himself from Bishop Lucker’s assertion that “We do not yet have the fullness of truth. No one does.” He adds:

“Within the dominant framework of this volume, truth becomes the hard fought attainment of the present generation that has the courage to pursue critical research and dialogue to their limits. Only through communal discernment can the problems of local adaptations of the liturgy, the moral limits of war, and the demands for more participatory structures of the Church government be resolved.”

The reviewer concludes:

            “A major difficulty with several essays in this volume is that their understanding of Catholicity seems to be somewhat truncated.”

In my own appraisal, I limit my comments only to what the late Bishop writes in his “Introduction” and in his two-part “Appendix”. The Bishop begins his “Introduction” by examining two ideas: the first is the beauty of Revelation and the second is its challenge. The beauty stems from the loving motivation behind God’s own self-communication. The challenge lies in the fact that God’s self-communication is incomplete. As stated above, the Bishop asserts:

            “We do not have the fullness of truth. No one does.”

He then goes on to say that doctrine continues to develop because of the ongoing dynamic of the prophetic charism given to every member of the Church.

The Bishop then refers to Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25, to distinguish between definitive and authentic teaching on the part of the Church’s magisterium. “Definitive”, he defines as unchangeable. “Authoritative” he defines as “not-unchangeable.” At this point the Bishop uses the example of the ordination of women and acknowledges that the Holy Father’s admonition that this teaching is unchangeable. If that position proves to be true, he continues, then it must be accepted. But the question to be pursued in this book is precisely: “How the Church knows what is a definitive teaching?”

It is at this point in the “Introduction” that Bishop Lucker refers to his “Appendix” which is divided into two sections: 1) a list of thirty-seven topics on which the Church teachings have changed over the years; 2) a list of fifteen topics on which Church teaching could some day change.

The first list lumps together topics that are of varying degrees or of different levels of Church teaching, for example: what the Church has taught by way of procedures in the way of the selection of Bishops, the relationship of Church and state, on democracy, on the ways of celebrating the Sacrament of Penance, on Ecumenism. It is fair to say that while all these topics are important, nonetheless they are not what most theologians would refer to as substantial objects of divine revelation.

The preponderance of these thirty-seven changes in Church teaching in the first section sets the reader up for the fifteen proposed Church teachings in the second list that, it insists, could change. These fifteen topics, unlike the thirty-seven in the first section, are of greater theological substance. Eleven of the fifteen are refuted by sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and four are affirmed by the Catechism:

           1.  Anglican Orders versus Catechism #77, 860, 1555;

           2.  Birth Control versus Catechism #1652, 1653;

           3.  Celibacy of the Clergy versus Catechism #1579-1599;

       4.  Communion for Divorced and Remarried versus Catechism #1665;

       5.  General Absolution versus Catechism #1482, 1483, 1484;

       6.  Homosexuality versus Catechism #2357, 2358, 2359;

       7.  Intercommunion versus Catechism #1399, 1400, 1401;

       8.  International Forum Solution for People in Second Marriages versus Catechism #1631;

      9.  Canonical Mandate for Theologians versus Catechism #884, 890;

    10.   Ordination of Women to the Diaconate versus Catechism #1577, 1578;

    11.   Patriarchy versus Catechism #1555.

         Also included in this list are four points which do conform to the Catechism:

  1.  Capital Punishment, see Catechism #2267;

     2.  Deterrence – Nuclear Weapons, see Catechism #2315;     

     3.  Just War, see Catechism #2309;

     4.  Reunion with the Orthodox, see Catechism #838, 1399.

In summary, then, the contribution of Bishop Lucker to this work is problematic, in my opinion, from two points of view:

1)  He served as a bishop ordained to teach and defend what the Catholic Church affirms as doctrine, even when it is not infallibly defined;

2)  He confuses the reader on the necessity of believing what the Church teaches by way of her Ordinary Magisterium (i.e. “authoritative teaching”).

With regard to the first point, the Constitution Lumen Gentium, paragraph 21, declares:

            “By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, Bishops have been constituted as authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors.”

With regard to the second point, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25, also declares:

“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the Bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex-cathedra.”

Dissent from this authoritative teaching as expressed by the Council places one theologically in opposition to the Church and spiritually in peril of losing eternal life. Catholics have a right to know that the Church is a sure guide for their salvation. Living in a society that is highly influenced by both democratic processes and a culture of relativism, American Catholics today find their faith being called into question at every turn. There is a strong secular agenda at work in both the judicial courts, government structures and the media. Those who have been ordained to teach in the name of the Church must defend the truths of our Catholic faith as revealed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ against these forces of secularization.

Bishop Lucker did many good things as Bishop of this Diocese for almost twenty-five years. I pray for him daily. In two conversations we had before his death, he volunteered a promise that he would never interfere with decisions I would have to make on behalf of the Diocese. He obviously saw the importance of placing the mission of the Church ahead of any consideration to personal style or individual opinion. The questions raised by his involvement with the writing of this work seem to back away from that expressed priority. For this reason, I believe its publication was unfortunate.

April 2, 2004