Free Speech in the Church

Author(s): Gerry O'Hanlon

Source: Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review , Summer 2016, Vol. 105, No. 418, FREEDOM
OF SPEECH HOW FAR CAN YOU GO? (Summer 2016), pp. 199-211
Published by: Messenger Publications

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24871664

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies: An Irish
Quarterly Review

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

Free Speech in the Church

Gerry O'Hanlon S J

It may come as a surprise to many to learn that the Catholic Church's teaching
on freedom of speech and expression within the Church is overwhelmingly
positive. I say a surprise, because, the practice of the Church has been seen
to be quite repressive, not least in recent times, in Ireland and world-wide. I
want to examine this teaching and practice, with a view to teasing out some
of the issues that arise.

Teaching and practice

It is well know that in the pre-Vatican II Church, with all its strengths,
there was also a fortress mentality, which was hostile to the spirit of free
speech. This was shown in the vehement condemnation of Liberalism and
Modernism by Pius IX in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, reinforced by Pius X
in his Lamentabili decree (1907) and his Oath against Modernism (1910).
The ecclesial cultural context of the time ('error has no rights') did not value
freedom of speech - the hierarchy/clergy were assumed to have the exclusive
right to teach/command, while the laity were expected to obey.1 Many
theologians of the so-called nouvelle théologie were severely censured in the
period leading up to the Second Vatican Council for being too outspoken.
However, there were already signs that things were changing in the pre
Vatican II period. In 1950, Pius XII (who was generally conservative but had
earlier commended democracy - a break-through for the Church) remarked
that 'something would be lacking in (the Church's) life if she had no public
opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this'.2
This remark of Pius has often been quoted in subsequent Church documents
on these issues.

Karl Rahner, himself intermittently under a cloud from the Vatican from
1951 to 1962 (on the eve of the Council), bravely wrote a significant piece in
1953 (published in English in 1959).3 In it he referred to the Pope's observation
and developed his own argument for free speech in the Church. He wanted
the faithful to be brought up in a responsible spirit of obedience which would
make use 'of their right to express their opinions' (36), to have a 'proper

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 199

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon SJ

critical spirit towards Church matters' (36), learning to unite 'the inevitable
detachment of a critical public attitude with genuine and inspired love of the
Church and a genuine subordination and submission to the actual official
representatives of the Church' (36). He went on to say that we must learn
'that even in the Church there can be a body something like Her Majesty's
Opposition, which in the course of Church history has always had its own
kind of saints in its ranks - the ranks of a genuine, divinely-willed opposition
to all that is merely human in the Church and her official representatives'
(36-37). He argued that not only do the faithful have a right to speak out in
certain circumstances, but also a duty (37).
In the context of the political culture of his time, current and recent
(Communism, Nazism and Fascism in Europe), Rahner cautioned that 'the
Church today should be more careful than ever before not to give even
the slightest impression that she is of the same order as those totalitarian
states for whom outward power and sterile obedience are everything and
love and freedom are nothing, and that her methods of government are those
of the totalitarian systems in which public opinion has become a Ministry
of Propaganda' (38). And, with admirable restraint and delicacy, he noted
that even today 'we - both those of us who are in authority and those who
are under authority - are perhaps still accustomed here and there to certain
patriarchal forms of leadership and obedience which have no essential or
lasting connection with the real stuff of Church authority and obedience' (38).
It was Vatican II itself which officially adopted a more open attitude to
the secular world and supplied a much needed corrective to the unbalanced
negativity of the 'long nineteenth century'.4 In particular, in its Declaration
on Religious Freedom (one of the documents which Joseph Ratzinger,5
approvingly, referred to as part of the 'counter-syllabus' of Vatican II), it
became clear that freedom of religion and conscience entailed respect for
free speech.
However, the most authoritative expression of the teaching on free speech
in the Church occurs in an Instruction of the Pontifical Council for Social
Communications, entitled Communio et Progressio (CP) and published in
1971.6 In CP (referred to approvingly by Pope John Paul II in 2005), the
notions of free speech, the right to freedom of expression and information,
and the related notion of public opinion are located within the social nature of
the Church, with special emphasis on their potential for building community.
Public opinion is seen as an essential expression of human nature organised

200 Studies • volume 105 • number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

in a society and, if it is to emerge in a proper manner, 'it is absolutely essential

that there be freedom to express ideas and attitudes' (n 25).
The Instruction goes on to state (and it is worth quoting at some length):
In accordance with the express teaching of the Second Vatican
Council it is necessary unequivocally to declare that freedom
of speech for individuals and groups must be permitted so long
as the common good and public morality be not endangered.
In order that people may more usefully cooperate and further
improve the life of the community, there must be freedom
to assess and compare differing views which seem to have
weight and validity. Within this free interplay of opinion, there
exists a process of give and take, of acceptance or rejection, of
compromise or compilation. And within this same process, the
more valid ideas can gain ground so that a consensus that will
lead to common action becomes possible (n 25).
The sections of the Instruction referred to above are mainly concerned with
civic life, but, as Patrick Hannon observes, 'there is no reason to think that
what it says isn't applicable, mutatis mutandis, to life in the Church', and
indeed the application is later made explicit, in particular under the rubric
of public opinion.7 The Church, in order to strengthen internal union among
its members as well as to fulfil its mission to the world at large, must 'listen
carefully to public opinion inside and outside the Church' (n 114). Without
public opinion the Church 'cannot advance in thought and action' (n 115),
something would be lacking (Pius XII is quoted here), Catholics should be
aware of a freedom to speak their minds, a freedom whose roots are in a
'feeling for the faith'8 and love (n 115).
The Instruction is clear that the scope for freedom is vast but is not absolute:
in particular it distinguishes 'the area that is devoted to scientific investigation'
(the context seems to suggest here experts in the theological disciplines) and:
'the area that concerns the teaching of the faithful'. Regarding the former,
experts enjoy the freedom required by their work and are free to communicate
with others in books and commentaries about the fruits of their research, but
'it sometimes happens...because of the very nature of social communication
that new opinions circulating among theologians, at times, circulate too soon
and in the wrong places (n 118)'.
I will come back to the various qualifiers of free speech mentioned
in the teaching above, just noting for now that the revolution in digital

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 201

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon S J

communication has entailed a démocratisation of free speech that makes

it much more difficult to maintain any strict separation between scientific
investigation and public access to such information.9 For present purposes
however, as Patrick Hannon notes, given the impression that many have
that loyalty 'to the Church' requires that no-one give voice to any criticism
or question at all, it seems important to emphasise the existence of official
Church teaching about the 'positive values of public opinion, freedom of
expression and a right to information, including for the life of the Church
itself'.10This official teaching was reiterated in another document dating from
1971 - the text on Justice in the World published by the Synod of Bishops,
and in several other documents since then.11
However, a document published by the International Theological
Commission in 2014, authorised by Cardinal Mueller in his role as Prefect
of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), is of particular
significance. This document, entitled Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church
(SF), read in the light of the desire of Pope Francis to move towards a synodal
Church, specifies in an explicit way what was latent and perhaps implicit in
the teaching of the 1971 instruction.
The document describes the 'sense of the faith/faithful' in terms of a

certain supernatural co-naturality with the truth of the Gospel which belongs
to the baptised individual and community. It outlines its biblical roots and
its crucial historical role, not least as understood by Cardinal Newman in
his analysis of the role of the 'simple' faithful in maintaining the orthodoxy
of the teaching of the Council of Nicea in the 4th century about the divinity
of Christ, when the bishops were wavering. While it is made clear that an
authentic discernment12 of this 'sense of the faith' at any particular time and
in relation to any particular issue is more than a mere survey or poll of public
opinion - indeed it may not even coincide with majority public opinion,
since often the truth is to be found in minority opinion - nonetheless 'public
opinion is a prime means by which, in a normal way, the sensus fidelium '
can be gauged' (n 125). Other means are also identified - the liturgy, popular
religiosity, the poor and also 'various institutional instruments by which
the faithful may more formally be heard and consulted... such as particular
councils... diocesan synods... the pastoral council of each diocese... and
pastoral councils in parishes' (n 125), all involving the lay faithful.
The crucial importance of the 'sense of the faith' as a source and a critical
confirmation of authentic teaching is asserted, thus broadening the 19th

202 Studies • volume 105 • number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

century limitation of the term 'Magisterium' ( to bishops, Pope and Vatican

congregations only) to embrace its more historical meaning of a three-fold
conversation between baptised faithful, theologians and the hierarchy.13 This
is clearly the direction in which Pope Francis wants the Church to move
when he speaks of a synodal Church for the future, and of a more inclusive
notion of 'thinking with the Church'.14 And he has illustrated how that might
happen in practice by his open and consultative process throughout the recent
two-phase Synod on the Family (2014-5).
What the document SF makes clear is the intrinsic link between the 'sense
of the faith/faithful' and an ecclesial culture which values free speech and
public opinion. I would simply add that in the Second Vatican Council it was
made clear that the 'sense of the faith' is linked to the share of the baptised
in the office of Jesus Christ as prophet, but it is also asserted there that the
baptised have a share in the priestly and kingly role of Christ. The kingly
role refers to leadership and governance: one can see how a development of
this principle may lead to the notion that public opinion can feed into not just
doctrine but also decisions about Church polity and direction (see also CP n.
25 above) - for example, it may help to support the Pope in his expressed
desire that women occupy a more incisive role in the Church, including
decision-making roles.15
I have indicated that Church teaching has changed a good deal from the time
of the French Revolution on. It may be said that during the 'long nineteenth
century' (despite the remarks of Pius XII and the article by Rahner), the
official attitude towards free speech was negative and at best cautious. This
was the age of imprimatur and nihil obstat, of tight censorship and control.
The real breakthrough came with the Second Vatican Council and for about
15 or so years afterwards - the kind of serene confidence expressed by John
XXIII when he said in his opening address to Vatican II that the Church
prefers to use the 'medicine of mercy rather than that of severity', that 'the
truth of the Lord will remain forever', whereas 'errors vanish as quickly as
they arise, like mist before the sun', so that the Church 'meets the needs of
the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by
condemnations'16; the teaching in the Declaration of Religious Freedom of
Vatican II that 'truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as
it makes its entry into the mind at once quietly and with power' (n 1); and an
altogether less fearful engagement with the world.
But gradually - theologian Jim Corkery has spoken about a failure of

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 203

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon SJ

nerve, even a loss of faith17 - a more fearful climate reasserted itself. There
was the anxiety about Liberation Theology in the 80s, the silencing or
cautioning of dozens of theologians, including Seân Fagan in Ireland, and
other authors (including again several Religious in Ireland, the best known
perhaps being the case of Redemptorist priest Tony Flannery).18 Then there
was the attempt to remove certain issues from discussion of any kind and
the introduction of the term 'definitively taught' to cover an issue like the
ordination of women (see below). Side by side with all this was a growing
unease with the method and procedures of the CDF, with its excessive
powers.19 In a forensic analysis, canonist Ladisias Örsy judged that their
revised 1997 norms did not meet the requirement of justice for our day.20
Irish Carmelite theologian Christopher O'Donnell noted that 'the rather
obsessive secrecy surrounding much Church consultation is not helpful'.21
This was an era when it really did seem as if there was little respect for
'Her Majesty's Opposition', in which there was more than a whiff of the
totalitarian, Stasi- like atmosphere portrayed so well by von Donnersmarck
in his film The Lives of Others (2006).
The re-opening of windows by Pope Francis has been experienced by many,
then, as a great relief. He has declared that he wants Roman Congregations
to be institutions of help to the bishops and the Pope, not institutions of
censorship, noting that many cases of supposed lack of orthodoxy should
be handled locally by Conferences of Bishops and not by Rome.22 In this
context one could envisage that the CDF might revert to the role originally
intended for it by Paul VI when he established it (replacing the draconian
Holy Office), namely of encouraging responsible theological debate within
the Church. And there is the invitation for all the baptised, in accordance
with their gifts, to engage in that responsible conversation about faith and the
Church which Rahner spoke about back in the 50s, a conversation entirely
compatible with both criticism and loyalty, and of huge benefit to the Church
in its mission to grow in truth, love and holiness and be a more effective
sign to the world of God's Kingdom. It is in this context that Francis, in his
50th anniversary address, could dare to speak of the hope that the Church
might become a banner, an inspiration to a world that values participation,
solidarity and transparency but does not always achieve them.23

Issues that arise

As in civil society, the right to free speech in the Church is not absolute.

204 Studies • volume 105 • number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

Grounds for limitations of such freedom in civil society relate to libel,

incitement to hate and so on. In addition to these, what might be the limitations
proper to the particular nature of the Church? In general, it may be said that
Church membership entails acceptance of certain basic teachings 'of faith',
such as the Creed and defined dogmas by Ecumenical Councils and Popes.
However alongside these there is a vast body of teaching and opinion about
which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion, always taking into
account the weight accorded to the particular teaching.24
Given these general parameters, I propose to discuss the issue of the
limits to free speech within the Church by focussing on one current issue of
controversy, the ordination of women. Successive Popes (including Francis)
have said that this is not for discussion. Pope John-Paul II in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis (1994) said this was a 'definitive teaching', and, in his 1998
Letter Ad tuendam fidem, he inserted new canons into the Code of Canon
Law concerning the acceptance of doctrine 'definitively' proposed by the
Church. The CDF Commentary accompanying Ad tuendam fidem gives the
non-ordination of women as an example of this kind of teaching. This, then,
seems like an open and shut case - if one wants to remain a member of the
Catholic Church, one must simply accept and not discuss the ordination of
women.

However, it is not so simple. In the first instance the status of 'd

teaching' (not infallible, but irreformable - what does this mean?)
clear. The status in terms of authority of the Pope's Letter and of
Commentary is unclear - even more so in the latter case. This m
they are insufficient to clarify the theological category of definitiv
Is the doctrine of 'definitive teaching' an instance of legitimate
development or a theological novelty which will be rejected?25
apply to the issue of the ordination of women?
Whatever about the outcome of that particular debate, it remains
that the non-discussability of the issue has been stated by several P
so, for any responsible Catholic, that demands respect. But wha
open to discussion' mean? Christopher O'Donnell is most helpful
distinguishes, following the tradition, between questions for under
(quid sit?) and questions which lead to a yes/no answer (an
corresponds well to the distinction that philosopher Bernard Loner
between understanding and judgement in his cognitional theory.27
for understanding - even about the most solemnly defined Church

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 205

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon SJ

- are always open for discussion. Thus, O'Donnell argues that while 'one is
no longer free to assert boldly that women should be ordained', nonetheless
one is always free to examine and attempt to understand the main arguments
given in the matter.
I would simply add at this point that, if such an examination, over a long
time and with a sufficient consensus emerging, continues to leave many
people unconvinced by the reasons given, then, since this is not an infallible
teaching, there begins to emerge a strong case for more open discussion of
the lan sit?' question too, the teaching itself.28 In this context I recall the
salutary remark of the Melkite Patriach Maximos IV Saigh to Paul VI at
Vatican II: 'repressed truths turn poisonous'.29
A further issue arises. I have written above about the link between free
speech and the role of the baptised faithful in sharing in the office of Jesus
Christ as king, not just prophet - in other words to do not just with teaching
but with action. In a similar vein the key Instruction from the Vatican speaks
of the value of public opinion in generating a context where 'the more
valid ideas can gain ground so that a consensus that will lead to common
action (my emphases) becomes possible' (CP, n 25). Is there freedom then
to advocate in the Church, to lobby, even in such controverted cases as the
ordination of women?

I think much of the traditional wisdom around the conditions for legitimate
dissent, also articulated by Rahner in his 50s piece, are helpful here. There
should be a presupposition of love for the Church and respect for legitimate
authority, even when at times we feel the need to challenge the particular
teachings of that authority. The temptation to wilful rebellion is, of course,
always present, given human frailty. In particular we do well to value the
role of authority in establishing and consolidating unity among a widely
diverse body. Nonetheless, as history, including Church history (think of
Jesus challenging the religious establishment of his day, Paul speaking out
openly against Peter in the question of the Gentile, the street riots which
accompanied the christological controversies of the 4th century), teaches us,
there can be a bias of common sense, the received wisdom of the day, which
needs challenging if we are to be led into the 'fullness of truth' by the Holy
Spirit (Jn 16,13).
Commentators on Catholic Social Teaching have noted the reserve of
the Church in commenting on the positive role of conflict, confrontation,
even anger in confronting situations of injustice.30 Pope Francis himself,

206 Studies • volume 105 • number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

however, is on the record of encouraging social and political activism in

the civil domain, including at grass-roots level.31 And within the Church he
has encouraged the prophetic role of Religious, even when prophecy makes
noise, uproar, some say 'a mess',32 insisting as well on the need for more
open debate and urging Bishops to listen to everyone, 'and not simply those
who would tell him what he would like to hear'.33 He has a feel for the fact
that change in society and Church may come from the periphery rather than
the centre. Given all this, given the history of movements like civil rights,
the anti-apartheid and feminist movements, it is difficult to accept that the
Church could simply reject all advocacy work, even in such a delicate matter
as the ordination of women.
I would only add that it seems to me that a good way forward is to advocate
in the first place for more open discussion of the issue, and, with political
scientist Sidney Tarrow in his analysis of social movements,34 for more
access to decision making (in other words a more synodal Church), rather
than for immediate resolution of particular issues, which may be too divisive
to be achieved in the context of a Church still unused to open debate and
healthy diversity. Ladisias Örsy puts it well in asking for an atmosphere of
'merry debate' and 'cheerful disputation',35 as indeed does Tony Flannery
when he hopes that Pope Francis:
...can create a climate within the Church where there is freedom
of thought and expression, where issues can be discussed and
debated. Because that is the only way in which to bring about
real change. Change that comes from on high is no good, and
will not survive. But change that comes through a process
of discussion, or dialogue, as we call it in the Church, is the
enduring kind of change.36
I note finally that not all are happy with the new era of free speech which
Pope Francis has inaugurated. Understandably, the new freedom for ideas to
circulate more openly has sometimes caused confusion, uncertainty and even
distress. This raises the issue - in the context of restrictions on freedom due
to the proper nature of the Church - as to whether there might not be a clash
between freedom of expression and the right to security of belief? I recall the
various qualifiers of free speech already mentioned, in particular the basic
respect for authority that should accompany it and the responsibility that sees
it not as a weapon to defeat opponents but as a means of entering more deeply
into the truth of the mystery of God. In this transitional phase, as we learn

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 207

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon SJ

good habits and best practice of constructive discussion and discernment

within the Church, we may also be invited (as the German bishops alerted us
in 1967)37 to imagine that it is alright - part of the freedom of the Gospels and
the Pauline Letters - not to be always certain in all matters, and not to expect
that Church authority always gets it right.
We can begin to understand that there is a holy 'provisionality' intrinsic to
our journey as a pilgrim people. This provisionality brings us back to placing
our trust in God rather than in our own sometimes overly fearful attempts to
build security - back, in other words, like Abraham, Moses, Mary and Peter,
to faith. And in faith, by gaining confidence in our personal and communal
'sense of the faith', aided by good practices of free speech and public opinion,
we can in fact help Church authority to correct mistakes and to teach with
even greater wisdom.

Conclusion

'In the beginning was the Word...' (John 1,1) - Christianity is grounded in
that original act of communication and self-expression, whose origin and
fullness is relationship and love, that we call the Trinity. And our Trinitarian
God freely communicates the divine self to us, creatures made in the divine
image and likeness. Our Church is more truly a sign, a sacrament of that
divine origin and end, the more it can encourage that freedom of speech
which is rooted in responsible love. This respect for freedom is part of its
mission to our world. We are being provided with a new context in which
it has become possible to fulfil this mission, a possibility that can only be
actualised if all Church members, according to their ability, play their role.

Gerry O'Hanlon SJ has written extensively on the post-Vatican II

Irish Catholic Church. He works in the Jesuit
Centre for Faith and Justice.

Notes
1 See O'Hanlon, 'Religious freedom', The Furrow, 64 (February 2013), 67
77.
2 Patrick Hannon, 'Free speech in the Church?', The Furrow, 63 (June 2012),
259-268 at 261 (and note 2).
3 Karl Rahner, Free Speech in the Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1959).

208 Studies • volume 105 • number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

4 John O'Malley uses this term to refer to the period between the aftermath
of the French Revolution and the eve of the Second Vatican Council, as
experienced by the Catholic Church - see O'Malley, What Happened at
Vatican //(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008), chapter 2.
5 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles for Catholic Theology: Building
Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987),
pp.381-2 (original German 1982).
6 This was mandated by Inter Mirifica, Vatican II's decree on the modern
media of communication, promulgated in 1963. For what follows see in
particular the most helpful account by Patrick Hannon, op. cit.
7 Hannon, op. cit., p.265.
8 The reference is to Lumen Gentium 12 and the sensus fidei, more usually
translated as the 'sense of the faith'.
9 See Anthony J Godzieba, ' Quaestio disputata: the magisterium in an age of
digital reproduction', pp. 140-153, and Vincent J Miller, 'When mediating
structures change: the magisterium, the media and the culture wars', pp.154
174, in Richard R Gaillardetz (ed.), When the Magisterium Intervenes
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2012).
10 Hannon, op. cit., pp.261-2.
11 See Hannon, op. cit., p.263, note 5, for further references.
12 See O'Hanlon, 'Discernment and the Synod on the Family', Doctrine and
Life, 65 (September 2015), 9-20.
13 See Ormond Rush, 'The prophetic office in the Church', in Gaillardetz, op.
cit., pp.89-112.
14 See O'Hanlon, 'The quiet revolution - reflections on Synod 2015', The
Furrow, 66 (December 2015), 632-641.
15 O'Hanlon, 'Church, women, authority - why notV, Doctrine and Life, 66
(January 2016), 23-32.
16 See Richard R Gaillardetz, An Unfinished Council (Collegeville: Liturgical
Press, 2015) 35-38
17 Jim Corkery SJ, 'Our own hope had been...(Luke 24:21): The promise of
Vatican II - reality or illusion', in Suzanne Mulligan (ed.), Reaping the
Harvest: Fifty Years after Vatican //(Dublin: Columba Press, 2012), pp.30
32.

18 See Bradford E Hinze, 'A decade of disciplining theologians ', in Gaillardetz,

op. cit., pp.3-39; Gabriel Daly, The Church - Always in Need of Reform
(Dublin: Dominican Publications, 2015), chapters 7 and 9; Tony Flannery, A
Question of Conscience (Dublin: Londubh Books, 2013).
19 Jesuit commentator Thomas Reese noted in 2008 that '...the contemporary
papacy rules the church with powers that would be the envy of any absolute

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 209

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gerry O'Hanlon SJ

monarch: the pope holds supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority
with few checks of power', and goes on to state that '...the treatment of
theologians accused of dissent by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the
Faith (CDF) is one of the scandals of the church' (Commonweal, 25 April
2008, 15-17).
20 See Ladisias Örsy, Receiving the Council (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
2009), chapter 7, especially pp. 102-4.
21 Christopher O'Donnell, 0 Carm., Ecclesia, A Theological Encyclopedia
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 136 (article on Dissent).
22 Pope Francis, 'A big heart open to God', interview in Jesuit periodicals
(including Studies), 2013.
23 Pope Francis, Address at Commemorative Ceremony for 50th Anniversary of
the Synod of Bishops, October 2015.
24 See Hannon, op. cit., 259-260, especially note 1 with reference to standard
treatments of this issue.
25 For a fuller discussion, in dialogue with Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect
of the CDF, see Örsy, 'Definitive doctrine and ordinances supporting it', in
Receiving the Council, pp. 115-142.
26 O'Donnell, op. cit., pp.474-478 (on Women, Ordination Of).
27 Bernard J F Lonergan SJ, Insight, A Study of Human Understanding (London:
Longmans, Green & Co, 1957).
28 See O'Hanlon, 'Church, women, authority: why notV, 23-32.
29 O'Malley, op. cit., p.272.
30 See Patrick Riordan SJ, 'A blessed rage for the common good', Irish
Theological Quarterly, 76 (2011), 3-19; Charles Curran, Catholic Social
Teaching, 1891-Present (Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 2001),
chapters 5 and 7; Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor and for the Earth (New
York: Orbis Books, 2016) (new edition about to be published), chapter 21.
31 Pope Francis, Address to Popular Movements, Rome, 28 October 2014.
32 Pope Francis, Wake Up the World, Address to Religious, November 2013 —
original text in La Civiltà Cattolica, 2014 I, 3-17.
33 Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013, n 31
34 Sidney G Tarrow, Power in Movement, Social Movements and Contentious
Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 159-167
35 Örsy, 'Fifty years later: the Council lives', Doctrine and Life, 62 (October
2012), 5-11 (at 8-9).
36 Connacht Tribune and ACP web-site, March 28, 2013.
37 See Francis A Sullivan SJ, Magisterium, Teaching Authority in the Church
(Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1983), pp.156-157 - in the context of non
defined statements the bishops state: 'In order to maintain the true and

210 Studies • volume 105- number 418

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Free Speech in the Church

ultimate substance of faith she (the Church) must, even at the risk of error in
points of detail, give expression to doctrinal directives which have a certain
degree of binding force, and yet, since there are not de fide definitions,
involve a certain element of the provisional even to the point of being
capable of including error'.

Studies • volume 105 • number 418 211

This content downloaded from

132.174.254.92 on Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:01:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms