Sociology as a Source for the Reception of Vatican II's Teaching on the Church and Episcopal Conferences

Abstract

This thesis examines issues that complicate the reception of Vatican II, proposes hermeneutical principles to engage these issues, and argues that to receive the council’s teaching on the church and episcopal conferences one has to combine sociology with the traditional sources of theology such as Scripture, patristic theology, church teaching, and church history. Chapter One studies issues that involve the reception of Vatican II through the perspectives of Walter Kasper, the delegates of the 1985 Synod of Bishops, and Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. It shows that to engage these issues, one has to pay attention both to the historical context of Vatican II and to the documents of the council, to both ressourcement and aggiornamento, and to both elements of continuity and elements of discontinuity in the teaching of Vatican II. Chapter Two explains why one needs sociology to interpret Vatican II’s teaching on the church. It argues that for the council’s bishops the church is more than a mystery of communion promoted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and defended by Joseph Ratzinger in his debate with Walter Kasper. The church is the sacrament of Christ or a theological and socio-historical reality. As a result, Scripture, patristic theology, church teaching, and church history are not sufficient to provide a proper understanding of the church. Sociology should be integrated into conciliar ecclesiology to study the church. Chapter Three shows how sociology can be integrated into ecclesiology to help theologians receive Vatican II’s teaching on the church. The chapter engages Neil Ormerod’s critique of Roger Haight’s two-language approach to ecclesiology to demonstrate why the relationship between the theological and the socio-historical dimension of the church complicates the integration of sociology into ecclesiology. It argues that Karl Rahner’s theology of grace and the church can provide a framework for relating sociology to ecclesiology. Chapter Four builds on this framework to examine the Vatican’s and Asian bishops’ reception of episcopal conferences. It argues that neither the Vatican’s nor the Asian bishops’ reception can offer a comprehensive understanding of episcopal conferences. To receive this teaching of the council, one has to combine sociological insights from the sociology of organizations with theological concepts from Scripture, canon law, and church teaching.