THE NEW E-MAGISTERIUM
Richard R. Gaillardetz

A common complaint heard from the Catholic right is that Catholic theologians are presenting themselves as
a "competing magisterium" to that of the college of,bishops. An extended and bitterly polemical exposition of
this complaint can be found in Ralph McInerny's new book, What Went Wrong With Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained.

There McInerny describes a postconciliar church in the midst of a crisis brought about by the corrosive work
of dissenting theologians. It is a caricature that gains credence more by its widespread repetition than by any objective analysis of the situation in the church today.

Unfortunately, the pressure put on the American bishops by the Roman Curia to add "juridical teeth"
to their implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae suggests that some in the Vatican may have taken this caricature
to heart. I cannot but wonder whether this vast expenditure of ecclesiastical time and energy has not been misspent. I personally know of no serious Catholic theologian who holds that theologians possess the same authority as the college of bishops. Indeed, in my experience the vast majority of Catholic theologians
recognize the unique role the bishops play in the life of the church.

They acknowledge a legitimate accountability to the ecclesiastical magisterium even as they may disagree with the concrete manner in which ecclesiastical oversight, in certain particular instances, is exercised. This sense of respect is manifested in their frequent collaboration with the bishops as seminary professors, diocesan consultors, participants in episcopally sponsored ecumenical dialogues and theological task forces.

In short, the danger posed by "dissenting" theologians has been grossly exaggerated. Credentialled Catholic theologians are readily identified, and, to the extent that they speak in public or publish their views, are
easily held accountable for their fidelity to the great tradition of the church. If a particular theologian
proposes a position clearly at variance with the great tradition, a bishop can make a straightforward statement to the effect that position X proposed by theologian Y does not, at present, represent the accepted teaching of the church.

I suspect the far more realistic threat of a new and competing magisterium may be, not the chimerical
"magisterium of theologians," but a new "e-magisterium" emerging on the Internet. I have in mind here the proliferation of self proclaimed "Catholic" Web sites that often dispense, in the name of orthodoxy, highly questionable theological materials.

The materials available on these Web sites are almost always presented as the "orthodox" exposition of the Catholic faith. This impression is strengthened by the fact that one can download from these sites ecclesiastical documents, the inclusion of which on the site gives an often unwarranted veneer of ecclesiastical respectability.

I know of no empirical study of the matter, but my suspicion is that in this age of the Internet far more first world Catholics are influenced by views championed on these ecclesiastically unmonitored Web sites than have ever been "confused" by the writings of Tissa Balasuriya or Jacques Dupuis! The volume by Balasuriya that initially occasioned the investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had sold, at the time of his initial investigation, approximately 750 copies. I suspect the EWTN Web site receives more "hits" in a single day

The growing impact of this e-magisterium has been confirmed in university classrooms. I have received a
growing number of papers from theology students that draw on sources obtained from the Internet.

Well-meaning theology students, including some who are preparing for both ordained and non-ordained ministry in the church, increasingly look to these sources to ascertain the "authentic Catholic position" on a particular matter. As but one example I might mention a document downloaded from a "Catholic" Web site entitled, "A Short Catechism on the 'New Theology."' The document suggests that the theological perspectives of Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, among others, are incompatible with orthodox Catholic faith. As both theologians were later created cardinals without recanting earlier held positions (Balthasar died before actually receiving the "red hat"), this is a rather provocative claim!

So what response does this new emagisterium warrant? I am certainly not advocating that the hosts of these Web sites petition for some new kind of nihil obstat from the hierarchy. Any such venture would be pastorally unworkable. Rather, my intention is simply to highlight a new pastoral reality. The proliferation of "Catholic" Web sites, bulletin boards and news groups is but the most recent and dramatic indication of the inexorable widening of contemporary theological conversation beyond the realm of the clergy and theological specialists.

This widening had already been taking place in the decades since the council, when many educated Catholics without professional theological training began reading journals like America or Commonweal.As this theological education and conversation broadens exponentially with the help of Internet technologies, the quality of the exchange may often fall prey to rampant ideological interests, as many hosts of these Web sites lack the balance and professional editorial instincts of those who run the aforementioned journals.

The fact is that however much we might lament over the quality of theological conversation being conducted, it is an exchange transpiring beyond ecclesiastical control. No church office could possibly oversee and credential or approve every Web site that emerges with the word Catholic in its self description.

This new situation reveals the changing character of our contemporary ecclesial landscape, and it calls for an altogether different model of the apostolic ministry of "oversight" (episkope).

In this new situation, perhaps the ministry of oversight can be better viewed as the encouragement and facilitation of respectful ecclesial discourse. The bishops must continue to fulfill their apostolic office by identifying the parameters of faithful theological conversation; this goes to the heart of the teaching and preaching ministry of the bishop. However, it may well be that the unintended benefit of the proliferation of theological conversation in cyberspace is that it has exposed the difficulties inherent in the ultimately futile strategy of controlling entrance into ecclesial conversation.

The outline of this shift in the character and exercise of episcopal ministry was already being sketched, if only haltingly, in the documents of the Second Vatican Council-a shift away from a view of the bishops as ecclesiastical administrators under Vatican direction who were to control the dissemination of "Catholic" information to that of pastors shepherding a flock and forming a people through liturgy, preaching and catechesis.

In this regard, the bishops might wish to follow the lead of the fine new Roman document, The General Directory for Catechesis, by reasserting the primacy of adult catechesis in parish catechetical ministry. After all, the pastoral challenge presented by the e-magisterium has come about because many Catholics rely for catechetical formation more on the Internet (and even the secular media) than on their participation in their local parish community.

The failure properly to form an adult Catholic population is exactly what makes Catholics susceptible to the claims of the e-magisterium, when it propagates the views of a reactionary few as the "orthodox Catholic faith." Only a well informed Catholic population, a people nourished in the life of the local church by word and sacrament, will be capable of evaluating the trustworthiness of the new sources of Catholic information now available tothem. There is a "connaturality" in the exercise of a mature Christian faith that allows one to distinguish mean-spirited polemics from authentic presentations of the great tradition of the church.

This new role for the bishops is in keeping with the teaching of Vatican II.

By affirming the full dignity of the baptized, by recognizing the value of the shared testimony of the faithful (senses fidelium), by stressing the importance of the faithful's access to vernacular biblical translations, by encouraging advanced Scripture and theological study by all the faithful, by admitting the clear limits of clerical expertise and the necessity of the clergy listening to the wisdom of the faithful, the teaching of Vatican II established a new context for the exercise of the apostolic office of the bishop. The bishops were no longer to be viewed as the sole repository of the apostolic faith but rather as the guardians of an apostolic heritage that is discerned, handed on and received in the life of the whole church.

How ironic it would be if this shift were actually facilitated by the technological initiatives of those who seek to restore, by modern means, an antiquated view of church authority!