Resolving Doubt

From behind the two-issue non-subcriber firewall at First Things, a letter to the editor in the February 2008 issue.

Apropos of Richard John Neuhaus’ comment on a first portion of my new book, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (While We’re At It, November 2008), I want to thank Fr. Neuhaus for acknowledging my love for the Church, even if, as he says, in my own “fashion.” Unfortunately, Neuhaus conveys the impression that the criteria that I propose for evaluating magisterial documents would allow a Catholic to reject an official teaching if only one criterion is not fulfilled.

But after listing those criteria, I wrote: “If all of the criteria are positive, the teaching can be accepted. If only a single criterion is doubtful, acceptance can temporarily be withheld until further examination. If the doubt cannot be resolved, then acceptance of the pronouncement can legitimately be withheld” (297–298).

This is a more nuanced position than the one characterized in Fr. Neuhaus’ charge that it would be “hard to think of any magisterial document that would pass muster” (71). As I insisted in the preface, in a passage that Fr. Neuhaus cited, “one must ... acknowledg[e] all legitimate sides to a debate while remaining faithful to the relevant official teachings of the Catholic Church” (xxiii).

Although Fr. Neuhaus dismissed this statement as unbelievable (see his reference to “Alice’s Queen”), my emphasis was on “remaining faithful” and offers the hermeneutical key for interpreting the passage that Neuhaus found problematic.

Rev. Richard P. McBrien
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana


RJN replies:
Although he apparently did not appreciate the tone, I do not see that Fr. McBrien’s statement on the criteria to be met before a magisterial document warrants assent differs from his position as I described it.