Magisterial Fundamentalism and the Broadening of the Catholic Theological Imagination

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” — John 16:12-15

In my opinion, one of the most dangerous theological movements within American Christianity is that of a strict Biblical fundamentalism. It is typically a fundamentalism that sees the first eleven chapters of Genesis, for example, as literal events within history: the cosmos being less than 10,000 years old, seven literal twenty-four hour days, a literal tower reaching towards the heavens, a literal worldwide flood, and so on. Now, I am not here advocating that Genesis has no meaning, but, rather that its meaning goes beyond a strictly literal interpretation. There are extremely rich and deep meanings within Genesis that touch on vital theological themes such as creation, anthropology, sin, salvation, and others. Far from extracting the full meaning of the text, a strict fundamentalism is inherently limiting to the movements of the Spirit. It leaves no other truth to be found other than a literal interpretation of the written words; the letter of the law, if you will. Yet, as Saint Paul says, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. When we read the Word of God, we must be careful not to limit it. Its meaning, due to being inspired by the Infinite God, is potentially infinite. There are always new things to be learned, deeper and more beautiful riches to be found if we would just keep digging. To treat it in any other way is a failure to treat it as truly inspired.

In Catholicism, we treat not only Scripture as inspired, but the Magisterium and Tradition as well. If we are to reject a biblical fundamentalism, should we not reject the same fundamentalism for the Magisterium and Tradition as well? A traditional fundamentalism, I believe, is rather easy to see. One needn't look further than the radical traditionalist movement all too popular nowadays among many Catholics. Though I also see the need to not forget about tradition, I also think it is important not to limit tradition by picking an arbitrary stopping point. We believe in a living and developing tradition inspired by the Spirit. To choose the Mass of Pius V as the full and final blossom of tradition is, again, to limit the Spirit.

However, this article is ultimately not concerned with a Biblical of traditional fundamentalism, but with a Magesterial one. Admittedly, if any of the three were to favor fundamentalism, it would seemingly be the Magisterium. Though many have written about the dangers of a Biblical or traditional fundamentalism, very few have brought up a Magisterial fundamentalism. If, however, we are to treat the Magisterium as inspired, then why can't we go beyond what is written and even intended? Take, for example, the revelation of the Divine name to Moses. The author of Exodus almost assuredly didn't have Divine simplicity in mind when writing that down. Yet, the concensus of the tradition extracts simplicity from that passage. Now, if God is the primary author and intender of Scripture, then it should not be surprising that what was originally written down, and perhaps even intended by the Scriptural authors is not necessarily what God intended, and it may take quite a while for the depths of the Divine intentions to be recognized.

It seems to me that we not only should say the same thing about the Magisterium, but must. In Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam, the (in)famous extra ecclesiam nulla salus—outside of the Church there is no salvation, was uttered. Vatican II reaffirms this teaching in Lumen Gentium 14 and 16, but offers a fresh interpretation; an interpretation that almost undoubtedly was not intended by Boniface VIII. According to a strict Magisterial fundamentalism, this interpretation is invalid. Another example would be the Church's record with slavery. As Dr. Jordan Daniel Wood points out, in the 15th century it would have been a mortal sin for a slave to run away from his master, and then it is taught in the 19th century that it is actually a mortal sin to even hold a slave. Again, according to a fundamentalist interpretation, these are utterly incompatible. One last example I'd like to point out would be the Church's teaching on hell. At the Council of Trent, it was taught that hell inflicts a pain of sense; a sort of active punishment and torture. In contrast, paragraph 1035 of the Catechism says the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God. Trent is saying that the chief pain of hell is inflicted apart from the damned, whereas the catechism is moving towards more of a C.S. Lewis "hell is locked from the inside" type view. The point of all of these examples is that one cannot offer an adequate synthesis of these views while also holding to a strict Magisterial fundamentalism.

If, however, we see Magisterial pronouncements as truly inspired, then their meanings are constantly being illumined, and new understandings constantly unearthed. It then becomes an offense to the Divine inspiration of the Magisterium to say that the interpretation of its teaching is exhausted. We have to be constantly open to new interpretations of Church teaching. Now, this is not to say that nothing is ruled out and that one day the Magisterium might denounce the Trinity or the Resurrection, but that the Catholic theological imagination must be broadened if we are to move forward. There is still much more to be understood, and many more avenues down which the Spirit desires to take us.

As it relates to universalism, this gives me great hope. What does "eternal" mean as it relates to hell? Sure, the Council fathers may have meant one thing, but is it possible that the Spirit meant another? If we are to believe that the Spirit guides the Church, then is it not possible that the meaning of an eternal hell is not fully developed yet? These questions are worth exploring, and I, for one, am willing to explore, for that is the Catholic way.