THIS TOO SHALL PASS : Why Ex corde's mandate won't last.

In the guidelines for the implementation of Ex corde ecclesiae adopted by the bishops last June, the mandatum, or mandate, theologians must seek from their local bishop is said to be "an acknowledgment by church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic church." It is not, the guidelines go on, "an appointment, authorization, delegation, or approbation of one's teaching by church authorities." The mandate requires the professor to "teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the church's magisterium."

The mandate is considered a "juridical" instrument, although the irony of such a canonical regulation being couched in such irremediably ambiguous language should be lost on no one. How can the bishop, whose serious moral obligation is to grant or refuse the mandate, determine with certainty the "fullness" of the professor's communion with the church? How much communion is deemed "full" communion? If the requirement of the mandate is a matter of theological, moral, and canonical importance, should the bishop simply "presume" such a full communion on the part of any theologian, as the guidelines recommend that he should? Does "teaching" rule out critical evaluation that includes pointing out, in an informed and reasoned way, the weaknesses and even wrongness of certain "authentic Catholic doctrine"? What is covered under "anything contrary to the church's magisterium"? Has not the magisterium taught doctrinal and moral errors in the past? Is not the possibility of error implied in the technical term "authentic teaching"?

If so, how can these errors be corrected if theologians are barred from showing that a certain teaching of the magisterium is not "Catholic teaching" as it is claimed to be? More practically, is an average American bishop intellectually competent to assess the orthodoxy of a theologian's writings?

Given these ambiguities, no wonder there are theologians, though committed to "full communion with the church," who will not apply for the mandate or will refuse it when granted motu proprio (on his own initiative) by the bishop.

(I leave aside other weighty reasons for not seeking the mandate, such as the possible loss of civil rights, the protection of academic freedom, the credibility of Catholic theology, and the well-being of the church.)

To gauge the possible impact of the mandate, it might be helpful to recall the history of another juridical requirement, namely, that of the oath against the Chinese Rites. Pope Benedict XIV's constitution Ex quo singulari (July 5, 1742) forbade the observance of various rites connected with the cult of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, and reinstituted the requirement of an oath against such rites for all missionaries to the East. To underline the seriousness of this oath, Benedict commanded that "each and everything" in his constitution "be observed exactly, integrally, absolutely, inviolably, and unchangeably...under pain of automatic excommunication":

   God forbid that a religious missionary of any order, congregation,
   institute, and society--even the Society of Jesus--refuse to obey those
   things which We lay down and command by the text of this Constitution,
   exactly, integrally, absolutely, inviolably, and strictly. If anyone does
   refuse, in virtue of holy obedience we expressly order his superiors, both
   provincial and general, to unhesitatingly remove such men--stubborn,
   sinful, and disobedient--from the missions. They should immediately recall
   them to Europe. They should report them to Us, so that we can punish the
   guilty according to the gravity of their offence.

To certify the perpetual validity of his decree, Benedict added: "We want this Constitution of Ours to remain in force, all of it lasting for all time to come." Of course, he did not foresee that "lasting for all time to come" came to an end on December 8, 1939, when a lowly instruction of Propaganda Fide, Plane compertum est, permitted, with Pius XII's approval, what Benedict had forbidden, and abolished the obligation of the oath.

There have been instances in church history where church authoritative teachings and disciplinary measures, often accompanied by threats of excommunication, were reversed. These include magisterial teachings on slavery, usury, religious freedom, and the compulsory use of Latin in the teaching of the sacred sciences in the past, and now on capital punishment. There are, however, three similarities between the Chinese Rites Controversy and the mandate requirement that invite thoughtful reflection.

Canonically, Ex corde's mandate pales in comparison with the oath issued by Benedict. Individual professors alone, and no other official of the university or religious superior, are bound by the mandate. No canonical or civil penalties, much less automatic excommunication, are attached to its violation. And, of course, there is no quasi-infallible, threatening, and demeaning language in the Ex corde guidelines. However, there are three instructive similarities between the mandate and the oath against the Chinese Rites. First, both were instituted without any dialogue or consultation with the people most directly concerned. The Chinese Christians, who were deeply affected by the Roman teaching and policies, were never consulted. Likewise, the mandate was approved by the American bishops without any consultation with theologians; only at the last minute, and only at the request of the theological learned societies, did the bishops "listen" to the theologians' concerns.

Second, both the oath and the mandate betray a monumental failure on the part of church authorities to understand and respect local customs and practices. In the Chinese Rites controversy, the cult of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors were presented in Western theological categories of "temple," "sacrifice," "altar," "adoration," "petitionary prayer," etc., and condemned as "superstitious" tout court. Similarly, the mandate is an attempt to use a legal instrument to assure orthodoxy throughout the world without due respect for longstanding academic traditions of various countries. In the last analysis, both measures suffer from a seriously defective theology of the local church and the church as communio.

Third, both the oath and the mandate are handicapped by a constricted vision. In the rites controversy a constricted vision of mission was at work; in Ex corde a parochial conception of what is educationally at stake dominates. In the eighteenth century the goal of mission was seen primarily as conversion from idolatry and religious perversion. Mission was not understood, as it is today, to consist in bearing witness to the reign of God through a respectful dialogue with local cultures, religions, and the poor. Similarly, the "Catholic identity" of colleges and universities is seen to reside primarily in the department of theology, and more precisely, in the possession of the mandate by its Catholic professors. But, as anyone with a nodding acquaintance with colleges and universities can attest, the theology faculty is far from the most influential department. Rather, it is the law, business, engineering, and medical schools as well as the natural science departments that wield the most power, enjoy the fattest budgets, and whose graduates will exercise the largest influence on society. It is very easy for these disciplines to ignore the "Catholic identity" of their institutions. If bishops are serious about preserving that identity, they should take on the "big guys," a task far more challenging than going after theologians.

If Pope Benedict XIV's prohibitions concerning the Chinese Rites were eventually reversed, there is no reason why a toothless law such as the mandate requirement will not meet the same fate, and much sooner. Here again, there may be a deep similarity between the oath and the mandate. Reversal was not brought about by the profound wisdom of ecclesiastical hierarchs or the brilliant insights of theologians (who were strictly forbidden to write about the controversy). Rather, it was occasioned by external events, namely, the difficulties that followed the refusal of some Catholic students of Sophia University in Tokyo to pay homage to the war dead during their visit to a Shinto shrine on May 5, 1932, and the decision of the Japanese Kwangtung army to make Confucianism the Wangtao (The Way of the Benevolent Ruler) for all the peoples (therefore also for Catholics) of their puppet state of Manchukuo. The fact that Japan was a rising economic and political power was no small incentive for the Vatican to discreetly shelve Pope Benedict's edict.

Similarly, it is doubtful that the mandate will be reversed because of the courageous posture of the American bishops vis-a-vis Rome or by the persuasiveness of a theological argument. If it is reversed, it will likely happen because of purely external factors such as loss of federal and state funding, expensive lawsuits against the bishops and the colleges and universities, bad publicity, difficulties in hiring new faculty, and the destruction of the lives of theologians, especially the lay ones. Unfortunately, these harmful things are not hypothetical scenarios. They are very real probabilities.

It is widely acknowledged that Rome's position on the Chinese Rites wreaked havoc with missionary work in Asia. Indeed, the church has yet to recover fully from the damage. Rome's actions created untold suffering for Asians who had to betray their ancestors and their cultural heritage in order to be Christian. It is imperative that the mandate not be allowed to do similar damage to our universities and colleges. School presidents and boards of trustees must not allow the mandate to be written into the statutes of their institutions.

Regardless of their views on the mandate, a sense of professional solidarity is imperative for theologians. Those who apply for the mandate are not necessarily right-wing and narrow-minded or orthodox and faithful to the church, nor are those who refuse it "stubborn, sinful, and disobedient" or left-wing and broad-minded. As history warns us, not all the juridical actions of the magisterium are efficacious, let alone infallible.

Peter C. Phan is the Warren-Blanding Professor of Religion and Culture in the Department of Religion and Religious Education at The Catholic University of America, and president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.