Book Review: "Teaching with Authority" by Jimmy Akin

To say that we Catholics are living through confusing times will strike many as understatement. Over the past fifty years we have grown used to hearing the Church's faith, especially her moral teachings, disputed by her lay members; but today we encounter such statements from bishops conferences and cardinals. Pope Francis's habit of offering off-the-cuff remarks during homilies and interviews - remarks sometimes wanting in theological precision - have also led to confusion. Further, questions regarding his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, have gone unanswered for more than two years.  

The majority of serious Catholics are familiar with Vatican I's criteria for recognizing ex cathedra pronouncments; but what about the Council's further teaching that Catholics are bound to believe "all those things" taught through the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium," since they, too, are proposed infallibly (De Filius, 3)? When is the pope exercising his "ordinary magisterium," and what level of authority is attached to it? Many of today's arguments are heightened by disputes regarding what level of authority must be accorded to various papal and ecclesial statements.

In Teaching with Authority: How to Cut Through Doctrinal Confusion and Understand What the Church Really Says, Jimmy Akin goes to great lengths to bring clarity to these murky waters. I have other books on this topic (H.G. Hughes' What Catholics are Free to Believe or Not, Sullivan's Creative Fidelity, and Gaillardetz's By What Authority?), but I did not find any to be as helpful as Akin's. At 400 pages, his book is double, if not triple, the size of other treatments. (This shouldn't come as a surprise to those familiar with his work at Catholic Answers.)

My overall impressions: I finished the book with the almost paradoxical sense that (1) Catholic faith and morals are exactly what I have always understood them to be; and (2) I need to devote a great deal of time and research to ascertain what exactly has been taught infallibly and what has not. Jimmy Akin is careful in coming to conclusions. As much as we, the faithful, may wish the Church's pronouncements on a given matter to be more definitive, Akin has the integrity to refuse to go beyond what has been definitively stated. 

Teaching with Authority is divided into four sections: (I) The Church as Teacher; (II) Where Church Teaching is Found; (III) Understanding Church Teaching; and (IV) How Doctrine Can Develop - and How It Can't. The first section lays the theological foundation for the Church's teaching magisterium, showing how Christ made it intrinsic to her very nature and the various ways it is expressed through the bishops' individual teaching ministries, bishops conferences, ecumenical councils, and the papacy. It is informative, and I came away with a better knowledge of the Roman Curia.The second section begins with Scripture and Tradition as sources of divine revelation, before turning to the various documents in which the Church offers instruction to the faithful. A few examples of the type of information you'll find:

• The only time documents written by national bishops' conferences "constitute authentic magisterium" is when they are doctrinal in nature and either (a) unanimously approved by the full body of bishops, or (b) approved by 2/3 of the bishops and granted the recognitio of the Holy See.
• At Vatican II, the "constitutions are the most authoritative documents, and the dogmatic constitutions - Dei Verbum (on revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church) - are the most authoritative of all" (p.110-11).
• The names and nature of papal documents have changed over time and are not always consistent.
• Apostolic constitutions are considered the most authoritative papal documents (examples: Ineffablis Deus infallibly defining the Immaculate Conception and Muntificientissimus Deus, defining the Assumption of Mary).
• Pope have used papal encyclicals to reaffirm infallible teachings but no propose new ones.
• Curial documents, even those issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, must carry express papal approval to be considered acts of the Magisterium.
• Simply because a teaching is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), does not mean it is infallible. As Cardinal Ratzinger noted, the Catechism's teachings "receive no other weight than that which they already possess," meaning that one must look at earlier and later documents of the Magisterium to determine a teachings level of authority.

Akin's third and fourth sections, which constitute the majority of the book, were of greatest interest to me. Akin goes into great depth, exploring the skills needed to correctly interpret magisterial documents: checking the original Latin, a knowledge of technical vocabulary and what it meant in a given century versus today, the need to respect intentional ambiguity in Church teaching and not going further in drawing conclusions than an author intends, etc. They are much-needed reminders for the armchair theologian. He also unpacks the technical meanings of "heresy" and "schism," showing how they are frequently misused. theologian. 

Chapter 12, "The Spectrum of Authority,"and its analysis of Cardinals Ratinger and Bertone's CDF document, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei, clarified the three levels of authority attached to Church teaching better than anything else I have read. Akin spells out what the Church means by "theological" (or "divine and catholic faith"), "firm and definitive assent," and "religious submission of the mind and will" and the distinctions between them.

Akin's Teaching with Authority is not an "easy" read. He is a gifted communicator, and he writes very clearly; but this is a complicated topic. For anyone, however, who wants to enter into this crucial area of study; I have not seen a more thorough or even-handed introduction to the topic. I call it an introduction, though, since I can't imagine a reader finishing the book without coming to the humbling realization that, however much he has already studied the Faith, a lifetime of work still lies before him. 

The "Perspicuity" of Scripture ... Is It Scriptural?

Revisited some of my roots this morning at a local non-denominational church.  Praise and worship was a blast.  Even though I hadn't sung these particular songs before, they were very easy to learn; and I felt a great peace praising God along with everyone.  What made it especially good was being able to pray alongside a good friend and his family - first time, after years of talking about our faith, that I had the chance to join him in prayer.

I had seen podcasts from the lead pastor and was looking forward to hearing him talk about how to read Scripture this morning.  I was curious - would he share elements of lectio divina?  Maybe talk about the four "senses" of Scripture?  Well, he didn't really get into much of the how; but he did a tremendous job of stressing our need for God's word in Scripture.  He made a great analogy, complete with the visual image of his hand in a crockpot, of how when a Christian who owns a Bible complains that God won't speak to them, it is as humorous as a guy walking around with his hand stuck in a crockpot whining, "I'm starving!  Does anybody know where I can get some food?!" We were just chuggin' along for a good half an hour when ... the train suddenly veered  off the tracks - at least for me.  That was a couple of hours ago, and I'm still in a bit of a funk.  So what happened?

Ninety percent of what he shared was fantastic - Scripture is God-breathed (inspired), it is utterly trustworthy (inerrant), it dispels the darkness in our lives, speaks directly to the deepest needs of our hearts, and we shouldn't stay away from it because we think it's too difficult to understand.  But then he got to that final 10% where he said that what he was sharing went right back to the Reformation: the Catholic Church inserted itself between believers and the Bible, claiming that it couldn't be understood unless she taught it to them.  Martin Luther put Scripture back where it belonged - in the hands of the people. (Quite a mis-characterization.)  He then expounded the "perspicuity" of Scripture, meaning that Scripture is clear in its meaning and a person does not need anything outside of Scripture - like a church - to understand it.

Now, this pastor was quick to offer qualifications:  Yes, there are very difficult passages, passages that made his "head hurt."  He explained how we often need to consider this verse in relation to that verse in another book, etc.   And yes, there are denominational differences as to what various passages mean.  But, Scripture was perspicuous in the sense that "all orthodox Christians agree on the essentials."  (With those qualifications, I would think that "perspicuity" has lost its meaning.)  Things aren't exactly as smooth as he made it out to be in that last point either: yes we all believe in Jesus, but most denominations began precisely over disagreements as to what is, or is not, essential!  For instance:  What is Baptism?  Is it just a symbol, or does it actually wash away our sins and make us Christians?

It also seems to me that the work this gentleman engages in Sunday after Sunday argues against his claim:  What need would there be for him to lead people through different books of the Bible, drawing their attention to certain passages and explaining what it means? Not to put too fine of a point on it, but if Scripture really is perspicuous, then he should be out of a job.

There are other problems with the "perspicuity of Scripture" (like the fact that everyone I know reads the Bible not in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which God inspired it, but in English - making us dependent upon other human beings [the Church?] to interpret it for us), but what is probably most disastrous for the pastor's claim is how the Bible actually denies its perspicuity!  Where, you ask?  Lets start in the Book of Acts. 

The Holy Spirit had Philip run up alongside the chariot of an Ethiopian eunuch who had just been in Jerusalem worshiping:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.

Who can speak of his descendants?

For his life was taken from the earth.”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”  Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.  (Acts 8:30-35)

It obviously wasn't clear to this visitor to Jerusalem that Isaiah was referring to the recently executed rabbi, Jesus.  It was the Holy Spirit's intention that Philip, ordained by the Apostles (Acts 6:5-7), explain it to him!

A person who holds to the perspicuity of Scripture would surely object, "But Shane, that Ethiopian eunuch had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit.  We have, and so when we read Scripture, the Holy Spirit gives us understanding."  If that is true, then explain this passage written by St. Peter regarding other Christians' misunderstanding of Scripture:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)

Peter is talking about things in Paul's "letters" - our New Testament - that Christians, people who have received the Holy Spirit, find hard to understand and can distort to their own destruction!  The "perspicuity" of Scripture doesn't sound scriptural to me.  And to circle back around to this morning's pastor and his mention of Luther and the Reformation:  Luther launched his "theological revolution" on his interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans - the very part of the New Testament that Peter warned us can be "hard to understand" and open to distortion!  Eerie, no?

What this morning's pastor also failed to mention was how the Reformers removed seven books from the Old Testament and how Luther considered the New Testament's Hebrews, James, Jude, and The Book of Revelation inferior to the other books of the NT, and placed them in an appendix.  In Luther's 1522 German translation he described The Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw.” “It is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]…this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”[1] Of The Book of Revelation he wrote, “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it…let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book…I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.”[2] Thanks be to God that the thought of the other Reformers prevailed and these books were retained on an equal footing with the rest of the New Testament.

Claims about the perspicuity of Scripture and the claim that the Holy Spirit has promised to guide each person's private readings of the Bible do not stand up - not even in the day-to-day practice of those who make them.  Later in life, Luther lamented those who believed themselves to "understand the [Gospel] better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers ... there is no smearer but whenever he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself ... and convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him."[3]  

How do we know if our interpretation is wrong?  If it contradicts the teaching of the Church, who the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), then our interpretation is off the mark. There is no tension between the Bible and the Church.  

• Her popes and bishops were the ones who proclaimed which 27 books had to be recognized as forming the New Testament.  
• Up until Luther's day, and far beyond, when the vast majority of the world was illiterate, people's only way to learn God's written word was through the Church's preaching. 
• When the Reformers removed books from the Bible, the Church reaffirmed her faith in them. 
• The Catholic Church has four Scripture readings at every Mass.
• Through her popes and councils, she has begged her children to read it privately. 

But what the Church also proclaims is exactly what the Bible itself says (much more here): that it was written by members of the Church, is in complete agreement with the teachings of the Church, and will only be fully understood when read in full communion with the Church.  (Jesus set it up this way; He wants His word read within the Family.)  The perspicuity of Scripture? It is, ironically, unscriptural, and was not believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

It excites me when I hear a young, dynamic preacher, full of love for God's written word; but saddens me to hear him mix truth with potentially damaging error.  (It's like listening to a personal trainer psych people up to become runners, yet slip in a plug for smoking.  It will keep them from being the best runners they can be ... and possibly seriously harm them.)

I am thrilled that God is making use of this gentleman to get people started in reading His word.  I know he is sincere.  Please join me in praying that God allows him and his church's members to see all that He has placed in the pages of the Bible:  

• the Church's role in explaining Scripture and safe-guarding against misunderstanding
• the Sacraments - especially the Eucharist
• Our Mother Mary and the Communion of Saints
• the interior life   

These are treasures that God wants to give all His children.  Pray that the Holy Spirit sows questions in their hearts:  

• How did God get this Book to me?  
• Who did He use to write its "Table of Contents" (the canon of Scripture)?  
• He wouldn't have given us this Book without providing a way to guarantee that we understand it correctly - so what is that way?

Going back to my non-denominational days was good, and praying with my friend beyond excellent.  And, as sad as I may have been at the end of the pastor's sermon, he reminded me of all the scriptural and historical truths and spiritual treasures the Lord allowed me to discover ... and how those convinced me to hop the train back home to the Catholic Church.

---

---

[1] Luther, Martin, Luther’s Works, Volume 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965), p.396.

[2] Ibid, p. 398-399.

[3] Vost, Kevin, Memorize the Reasons: Defending the Faith with the Catholic Art of Memory (San Deigo: Catholic Answers, 2013), p. 195

Jesus Founded a Kingdom, Not a Democracy

I remember walking into a discussion back in 2004.  One of my co-workers was in my boss's office, lamenting the recent statement from our city's Archbishop that if the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, campaigned within our Archdiocese, he should not present himself to receive Communion. 

Our Archbishop, (now Cardinal) Raymond Burke, was vocal in his conviction that Catholic politicians who publicly persist in grave, manifest sin such as supporting abortion, must be denied Communion.  Their reception of Communion was both a sacrilege 
(see 1 Cor.11:27-32) and a scandal to the consciences of the  faithful - giving the confusing impression that it was possible to receive the Lord in Holy Communion while simultaneously persisting in grave sin (see 1 Cor.5:1-13).

My coworker felt it was completely wrong for a churchman to tell someone how he should vote.  We live in a democracy where every one has the right to vote their conscience.  My boss, knowing how committed I was to the Faith, asked me to weigh in.  Here was how I responded to my coworker:

"Senator Kerry is free to vote however he wishes.  What he cannot do, and Archbishop Burke is reminding him of this, is support the killing of unborn children and, at the same time, be united to Christ.  The Church is not the "Democracy of God," it is the Kingdom of God.  Jesus is the King, and His statement of what is good and what is evil is absolute; it's not up for a vote.  So John Kerry must decide which is more important to him - union with Jesus or his support of abortion.  The choice is his, but he can't have it both ways."

Why am I bringing this up 9 years later?  I was reminded of it yesterday while watching PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.  With the election of a new pope about to get underway they wanted to revisit a Vatican report released earlier this year citing “serious doctrinal problems” within the United States' Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) - a group that has expressed approval of same-sex relationships and contraceptives, and signed the New York Times letter stating there were legitimate, diverse opinions possible on the matter of abortion.  The program (transcript available here) interviewed Sr. Mary Hughes, past president of the LCWR, who seemed hopeful that the Church might adopt a more democratic model in the days to come:

"This is not just about the Vatican versus the nuns. This really is about the future of how we interpret the message of the Second Vatican Council, and what’s going on right now quite frankly makes me sad, because I see certain people in Rome, in the Vatican, who want retrenchment, who want to go back to the church the way it was before the Second Vatican Council, when the church was essentially the hierarchy, and they determined everything down to sometimes the minutia of Catholic life ...  There’s always a blessing that comes with every conflict. Perhaps the blessing is that we continue to open up within the Church avenues for true dialogue and true dialogue isn’t about winners and losers. It’s about people truly being able to listen to understand the other perspective before making any judgments."

To its credit, Religion & Ethics also interviewed author Colleen Carroll Campbell, who responded:

 "Women religious need to stand with the Church, and if they don’t feel that they can in good conscience do that anymore then I think it would take more integrity to simply step back and say, you know, maybe we’re not called to be Catholic women religious anymore. Maybe we want to be something else."

The Church isn't a democracy; it's a Kingdom.  The Pope and Bishops cannot dialogue on these matters because they aren't matters upon which diverse opinions can exist among disciples of Jesus.  They aren't positions that can be changed over time.  They are the directives of our King, "Jesus Christ - the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb.13:8). 
 

Lessons in Humility from M.J.

No, not from Michael Jackson; I thought my deceptive ploys to grab your attention were common knowledge by now. This post is about the humility of Mary and Joseph (The M.J. in J.M.J.).

Following Saturday's show about approved Marian apparitions I received a call from a woman desperate for the bishops to acknowledge that she had received a message from God.  (30 seconds into the conversation, she had already conveyed enough side details to indicate why the bishops are unable to do so.  My heart went out to her though; please pray for her peace and that she is able to find good medical treatment.)  She was desperate to be acknowledged; for people to know that God had spoken to her.  The only advice I could give her was to put everything into God's hands and to be at peace.  If He wanted this private revelation known then He would open the doors for it to be known.

She came back to me this morning while praying the Joyful Mysteries, and it brought Mary's humility into stark relief.  Mary had received the greatest revelation in all of human history; she was going to be the mother of the Messiah.  Gabriel referred to her by a title, "Full of Grace;" she stood head and shoulders above the rest of humanity.  

But notice how God communicated His will to Mary over those next few years - through Joseph.   God sent his angel to Joseph, and Joseph appraised Mary of their need to flee to Egypt, as well as their eventual need to return to Nazareth.  Now it was probably very evident to Mary and Joseph who had the brains in the family; preserved from original sin, Mary's mind undoubtedly processed information and arrived at conclusions much more quickly than Joseph's.  Joseph had to marvel at the pearls of wisdom that fell from Mary's lips and be in awe of the acts of love that flowed from her.  Even though Mary's holiness and intelligence surpassed Joseph's, God had still entrusted her to his care.  Mary recognized that the superabundant graces God poured out upon her did not excuse her from following the order he had established within the Holy Family.  And to Mary's praise, she was completely at peace with it!  Now that's humility, and there is peace in humility.

Many times we may feel like God has given us some great task to carry out in the Church, but the doors don't seem to open.  Perhaps our parish priests, diocesan officials, or even the bishop do not seem to have much interest in the plans we share.  God wants us to practice humility and place ourselves in His hands.  If this work is of God, then the doors will eventually open; and if the work is not of God, it is better they stay closed.  In any case, it is an opportunity to grow in humility, to submit ourselves to the order God has established for His Family on earth.  That's where the peace is.  (I know, it's hard to practice; growing up isn't easy.)  Look to Mary; she's a model worth imitating!

 

"By What Authority?" A Lesson for American Catholics

I've always loved today's Gospel.  When I read it aloud today, it spoke to me in a different way though.  I'll share the passage and then what struck me:
 As he was walking in the temple area, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders approached him
and said to him, "By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you this authority to do them?"
Jesus said to them, "I shall ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was John's baptism of heavenly or of human origin? Answer me."
They discussed this among themselves and said, "If we say, 'Of heavenly origin,' he will say, '(Then) why did you not believe him?'
But shall we say, 'Of human origin'?"--they feared the crowd, for they all thought John really was a prophet.
So they said to Jesus in reply, "We do not know." Then Jesus said to them, "Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Now of course I had always enjoyed seeing Jesus verbally out-maneuver His opponents, but today I finally understood that what Jesus is saying to them is that faith is all a matter of authority - whose word you believe.  John came claiming to speak for the Lord, and calling people to a baptism of repentance.  Because the chief priests, scribes, and elders didn't believe that John had the authority to do this - that he really spoke God's word - they ignored what he said and did.  So when they ask Jesus by what authority he teaches and acts, it will not matter if He says "from God" or not, because they have already decided that His message, critical of them, could not possibly be from God.  It strikes me that something similar is playing out before our eyes on the evening news.

Watching CBS's national news last night, I saw an interview with Sr. Pat Farrell, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the group recently criticized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).  Sr. Pat has been a religious for the past 47 years and took great exception to the CDF's assessment.  The CDF is also requiring Archbishop Sartain of Seattle to meet with LCWR leaders, representing 80% of U.S. women religious, "in order to implement a process of review and conformity to the teachings and discipline of the Church."

What issues did Sr. Pat take exception at being criticized for?  Sisters recommending birth control to low income women they minister to, and the sisters affirmations that homosexual acts are valid forms of affection in God's eyes.  Alright, if you're a person who really does accept the authority of Jesus of Nazareth, then those are not issues up for discussion.  Jesus, the Apostles, and all of her male and female saints, Bishops, and Popes throughout two thousand years have taught that birth control and homosexual acts are objectively - always objectively - wrong.  A person's ignorance of that obviously mitigates their culpability for engaging in these acts, but it does not change the fact that they are objectively disordered.  

The sisters should obviously continue reaching out to the people they have been serving - that is part of the Gospel imperative.  But in their service to these people they cannot say that parts of Jesus' teaching are not true.  It's the Truth that sets people free, that gives supernatural life, a life that lasts forever.  Otherwise, sisters who espouse the thoughts of Sr. Pat will be meeting needs that only pertain to this present, fallen world.  And it will soon pass away.  The U.S. already has plenty of social workers.  It needs Christian, faithful women religious, social workers, hospital administrators, teachers, doctors and nurses.

As we watch this play out on the evening news - the sisters "being bullied" by the big, bad Vatican - we need to ask, "By what authority?"  What authority are the sisters claiming for their disagreement with Church teaching, which is nothing but God's word?  

This shouldn't be a difficult issue for American Catholics.  If you believe Jesus spoke the Father's word, if you believe that the prophets and apostles were inspired to speak His Truth, then you embrace it 100%.  The sisters have given amazing service to God's people, and the Vatican praises them for it.  But there also appear to be a significant number, such as the LCWR's president on the evening news, who disagree with Jesus on significant moral issues.  This should not be and should be corrected.  And that is exactly what the shepherds of Christ's Church were given authority by Him to do! (Mt.18:15-18)