In the ranks of the loyal opposition, Call To Action is not alone. Recent Vatican edicts to discourage theological debate and to limit the teaching role of national bishops' conferences have prompted immediate questions and objections from mainstream theologians and canon lawyers.

The June 30 papal letter, Ad Tuendam Fidem (To Defend the Faith), changed canon law to provide punishment for Catholics who refuse to give definitive assent to Church teachings that are "infallibly taught" even though not solemnly defined as infallible. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger also issued a lengthy commentary listing several examples of such teachings, including the ban on ordaining women, and the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

Jesuit theologian Francis Sullivan of Boston College noted in America magazine that Ratzinger's list of things infallibly taught comes from his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and is not itself infallible. Jesuit canonist Ladislas Orsy of Fordham University went further: he told reporters the format shows this is not a CDF official document, but only a letter from Ratzinger and the CDF secretary who co-signed it. Theologian Charles Curran wrote in the National Catholic Reporter: "At best, this is a fallible judgment that something is infallible."

Catholic University of America canonist James Provost wrote in America that technically, the Pope made no major change in canon law, though practically, the law could be implemented in repressive ways. He found it "regrettable that the Pope singled out erring theologians," since canon law's same profession of faith obliges bishops, pastors, and candidates for ordination. Sr. Dianne Bergant, director of the Joint Doctor of Ministry Program at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, told the NCR it all depends on the local ordinary. "At ordination," she said, "whether priests take the oath or not depends upon which bishop ordains them."

Mercy Sr. Margaret Farley, incoming president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and a professor at Yale Divinity School, told the NCR the Vatican actions "will be seen as a very repressive move." If this introduces another era when theological questions cannot be raised, creative work will dry up, and some of the brightest young people will be discouraged from studying theology, she said. Are we on the brink of a theological witch hunt? Notre Dame University theologian Richard McBrien doesn't think so. He wrote in his syndicated column, "Even conservative bishops are wise enough to know that the Church cannot afford an open war between the hierarchy and theologians." Long-term, he said, Ad Tuendam Fidem will have little or no effect, since "the next pontificate will not necessarily be bound by it."

Setback for ecumenism
Short-term, Ratzinger shocked the church world by calling the 1896 papal bull against Anglican orders infallible. Sullivan noted that serious Anglican-Roman dialogue for the past 30 years had left the door open for reappraising the 1896 position, not canonizing it. But in the interim, Anglican ordinations of women and Roman declarations against such ordinations have complicated the picture. He hoped the dialogue participants "would still have the courage and patience to go forward." McBrien said the Ratzinger move was "astonishingly insensitive and provocative" less than three weeks before the decennial worldwide Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops. He said neither Cardinal Basil Hume of England nor Cardinal Edward Cassidy of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity was even consulted.

Bishops' conferences curbed
Another papal letter July 23 decreed that bishops' conferences can issue authoritative statements on moral or doctrinal matters only when their vote is unanimous, or when they have prior Vatican approval.

In the U.S., the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), one of 108 such conferences worldwide, often issues statements on both pastoral and public policy matters through its administrative board. An example is "Always Our Children," last year's pastoral message for parents of homosexual children. After fierce criticism from conservative publications, the text has already been altered in several places to please the Vatican. Now, under the new July 23 rules, the conference cannot upgrade the message to become a binding pastoral letter unless all U.S. bishops unanimously approve it.

"Unanimity is completely impractical," said Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese, editor of America. "There will always be a bishop that disagrees with even a minor point. Even ecumenical councils like Vatican II weren't expected to be unanimous." The alternative of seeking the approval of Rome, he said, "will tie the hands of the bishops' conferences, and make it difficult to be creative in responding to the pastoral needs of their people." Reese will address the whole area of Vatican and episcopal structures at the CTA National Conference this fall in Milwaukee.

Examples of creative teaching by the U.S. Bishops in recent years were the pastorals on peace (1983) and on the U.S. economy (1986). But creativity by bishops is a low priority for a Vatican bent on centralizing authority. In 1988 the Vatican circulated to all bishops a first draft document curbing bishops' conferences. Bishops worldwide -- and more than two-thirds of American bishops -- turned it down. In 1990, CTA's Call for Reform observed that the Vatican was "downgrading the importance of national bishops' conferences," and strongly reaffirmed the NCCB's collegial leadership style. Now, a decade later, the Vatican has reissued its 1988 statement largely unchanged.