The subtitle of this book, ‘Quarrying Granite Rocks with Razors’, suggests that it is going to describe an arduous task which is unlikely to succeed. Even though these words are a quotation from Newman, which seems to be intended to give the impression that the apparently unlikely project is successful, my impression was that the granite remains pretty well intact despite Professor Long’s efforts.
This is a shame. For those of us who think that canon law is a truly theological discipline, and not merely a legal one at the service of theology, the idea that Newman’s theory of development could help to understand something about the possibilities for the inner renewal of canon law is an attractive one, and fertile with possibilities. That possibility, however, is not one explored in this book. Instead, the author looks at the relationships between bishops and theologians and the canonical framework within which that relationship exists.
The book has three main sections. The first is ‘Newman’s understanding of theology’, which seeks to give an account of topics in Newman’s thought which are relevant to this theme. Long sketches Newman’s theory of development, and how it developed through his own writings, and then looks at the ideas of private judgment, public discussion and hierarchical moderation. In all this, Long stresses the elements in Newman’s thought which point away from dogmatic theology – without really asking whether what Newman meant by that term is really the same as what is meant today. Newman certainly believed that theological statements could be true or false, and also that there was a hierarchy of sources in theology which meant that private judgment does not simply act in a vacuum.
Long then goes on to lay out the canonical regulation of theologians and the teaching of theology in Catholic and Ecclesiastical Universities from the 1917 Code of Canon Law to the present day. The position of the 1917 Code is outlined, paying particular attention to the rights and responsibilities of bishops and to the nature of a university. This leads into a discussion of the material in the documents of the Second Vatican Council relating to this area. Long tries to argue that there is a distinct conciliar vision of the theologian; in doing so his analysis fails to address the relationship of this possibility to the idea that the Council sees the bishop as the archetypal theologian by virtue of his teaching role. Long goes on to review the canon law that has emerged in the whole area of education since the Council, obviously including the 1983 Code in his account but ranging beyond that. This discussion comes to centre on the question of the relationship between the theologian and the bishop, as discussed in the CDF document Donum Veritatis (for which he has few good words) and the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae on Catholic Universities. Disappointingly, this discussion does not address the difference in legal force between these two documents (or others like Veritatis Splendor), or the more technical question of the precise ecclesial nature of the position of a theologian (with the interesting sub-question as to whether this is different depending on whether she teaches in a Catholic or a secular university). The entire focus seems to be on the sense of hurt evinced by theologians in the 1990s that either the Vatican or the local bishop should have any power to hold them to ecclesial account for what they taught.
The exact nature of the legal power exercised by a bishop over a theologian remains unclear, as does the question of whether the theologian exercises a distinctly ecclesial office when acting as such. These seem to be the issues that Long seeks to address in the final section of his work. This section, however, offers a rather bitty analysis. The first deals with Newman’s difficulties surrounding the establishment of the Catholic University in Dublin, drawing especial attention to the problems he had with the Irish bishops. These seem more political than canonical in nature, and there is little reflection in this chapter on how canon law might have suggested these problems be addressed. The chapter on Newman’s theory of doctrinal development seems more critical than positive and what is left of Newman’s work after this criticism scarcely seems a solid enough basis for anything, let alone canonical development. The contemporary critics whom Long relies upon offer a picture which is as much antinomian as anything else, and the clear implication is that pluralism and difference should be prioritised over unity and coherence. Sections on Newman and modernism, and his rehabilitation do little more than establish that the climate of the early twentieth century was not favourable to any attempts to rethink theology. What is missing here is any attempt to follow the twentieth century unfolding of the idea of development – surely the work of Congar at least would have been useful in all this.
One of Newman’s great contributions to theology was the recognition of the value of history as an analytic tool – but it is a big step from that to the idea that theological work can lead to the dogmatic statements of the Christian tradition (as seen in Church creeds and other formal pronouncements) and can be changed. The concluding reflections in the work look at the way in which the recent papal magisterium has sought to develop Catholic theology. Newman’s advocacy of open theological debate in the academy seems to be reduced to little more than a benign voice in favour of change with good manners. The legal questions which Long sought to raise have been left far behind, and canonists (or others) who are seeking to find a coherent basis for any structural form of interaction between bishops and theologians will be disappointed.
