I saw this blog post by canonical professional (sic) Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD some time ago, but didn’t comment then. I read it again today and will make a few remarks. Peters is criticizing this post by Steve Skellmeyer. But my post is about whether or not the faithful should discuss publicly whether or not a person is qualified to teach at a seminary.
Skellmeyer notes that canon 253 § 1 requires the Bishops “to appoint to the function of teacher in philosophical, theological, and juridic disciplines only those who are outstanding in virtue and have obtained a doctorate or licentiate from a university or faculty recognized by the Holy See.” Peters does not disagree with Skellmeyer’s reading of the canon. It is in fact a requirement of Church law that teachers of certain disciplines at a seminary have doctorate or licentiate and that said degree be from “a university or faculty recognized by the Holy See”. Smith’s degrees are not from a Catholic university or college. The canon does not explicitly state that the degree in question must be in those disciplines, but this requirement is implied. A Ph.D. in astrophysics from a Catholic university is not a reasonable qualification for teaching theology. Canon law must always be interpreted in the light of both faith and reason. So Skellmeyer has a basis in canon law for his criticism of Smith’s teaching appointment.
And such a decision by the seminary, with the approval of the local Bishop, is not an act of the Magisterium, requiring the assent of faith or religious assent. At most, the hiring decisions of seminaries are of the temporal authority of the Church, if the Bishop is involved in the decision. But decisions of the temporal authority are judgments of the prudential order, not teachings, and so there is room for some disagreement by the faithful without sin, without being unfaithful or disobedient.
Peters points out that a Bishop can dispense from the canon in question. Yes, certainly he can and has dispensed her from that canon. But can the faithful criticize his decision? The teachers at a seminary are helping to prepare men for their future service to the faithful in the priesthood. The faithful have a right and a duty to be concerned about this process of preparation. We should all be praying for seminarians as well as for the clergy. But our involvement need not be restricted to prayer. If there is some reasonable basis, the faithful assist the Church in Her work of preparing men for the priesthood by criticizing any problems with that process. The fact that a Bishop can dispense from canon 253 does not imply that he should.
Skellmeyer’s basis for objection to Smith’s appointment is substantial. She has no degree in theology, philosophy, or law. She has no degree even from a Catholic university or college. Yet she is teaching moral theology to future priests. Perhaps the Bishop erred in appointing her; perhaps he did not. But Skellmeyer’s criticism is not “ludicrous”, as Peters asserts.
Peters asserts that Skellmeyer errs by “mistakenly assuming that canon 253 is the sole criterion by which seminary appointments are assessed”. But Skellmeyer doesn’t assert that the canon is the sole criterion; he merely imples that it is generally an essential one. In saying that the Bishops “are to appoint…only those”, the canon is not presenting one of many possible optional criteria, but a necessary one. A Bishop can dispense from such a canon, but if he does so, he is dispensing from a requirement of the law.
Surprisingly, despite knowing Smith as a friend and colleague, Peters does not present to the reader any of her qualifications for her position. I believe that Smith does have substantial qualifications. What I am saying is that Peters offers none. He cites three appointments that she received from different congregations of the Holy See. But this argument begs the question. It makes sense to say that a person received appointment A, based on qualifications B, C, D. But what does it mean to say that a person received appointment A, based on previous appointments B, C, D? A person who is given an appointment to a position by the Holy See probably does have qualifications. However, sometimes persons are appointed to assist a congregation in some manner without having the qualifications needed to teach in a seminary. The fact that Smith received those appointments does not tell us what her qualifications were for those appointments, nor for her teaching position at the seminary.
I believe that Janet Smith does have substantial qualifications to teach moral theology. I agree with some of her positions in moral theology, and have cited her to support some of my own arguments. I am also critical of some of her other positions. I am not going to judge whether or not she should be teaching in a seminary. But I believe that Skellmeyer was justified in raising the question.
