426 - Infallibility Revisited

Infallibility Revisited
By John J. Carey

"Anyone who works with the literature of the infallibility debate quickly detects that underlying much of the controversy are some radically different assumptions about theological method. . . . It is abundantly clear from Küng's earlier works that he takes biblical categories as normative, accepts and draws upon insights of critical biblical scholarship (both Protestant and Catholic), and deals with Roman Catholic thought primarily through historical analysis. While this means that Küng's is probably the most intelligible and persuasive Roman Catholic theologian for a Protestant to read, it also goes against the grain of the scholasticism and transcendentalism that have prevailed in many centers of Roman Catholic thought."

ONE thing about Hans Küng: he goes for the jugular. His instinct for what is the timely theological issue for Roman Catholicism has put him in the forefront of Roman Catholic controversy during the past decade. From his meteoric rise to prominence in 1961 with the publication of The Council, Reform and Reunion through his disputes with Rome over Humanae Vitae, he has established himself as an outspoken and articulate leader of the reform movement in the Roman Catholic Church. Criticisms of the Petrine office had been both implicit and explicit in Küng's earlier works, so for many tradition-oriented Catholics it was simply the culmination of Küng's long anti-Roman stance when on July 18, 1970 one hundred years to the day after the adjourning of Vatican

John J. Carey is Associate Professor of Religion at the Florida State University, Tallahassee. He has studied at Yale and Duke and has written for The Christian Century, Religion in Life, and THEOLOGY TODAY ("Who Are the Cambridge Radicals?" Oct., 1970, PP.. 315-331). The current discussion over infallibility in Catholic circles is of major theological as well as ecclesiastical import. Dr. Carey's analysis sums up the issues and indicates the areas of special significance for the ecumenical movement.

427 - Infallibility Revisited

I-he published his provocative study on the meaning of infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church (Unfehlbar? Eine Anfrage, English translation, Infallible? An Inquiry. New York: Doubleday, 1971).

A major controversy over this recent book has erupted in Europe, and its tremors have made major waves in the United States and Canada. Küng's supporters and critics agree on one major point: he has attacked the critical issue of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Karl Rahner shocked a number of Roman Catholic theologians and clergy when, in an early review of Küng's book, he charged that Küng had overstepped the parameters of Catholic theology and adopted the views of a liberal Protestant. Küng replied to Rahner by expressing surprise over the neo-scholastic method Rahner wants to use in justifying the claims of papal infallibility; he also pointed out how Rahner has apparently become more conservative as he has grown older. ¹

The Küng-Rahner dispute seems to be emerging along less political lines in recent months, and enough time has elapsed to let us distinguish two phases of the infallibility debate. An initial phase was marked by Rahner's sharp blast, a few sympathetic reviews of Küng's work by progressive European theologians, angry defensive reactions by the Italian hierarchy, L'Osservatore Romano, and the Roman Jesuit journal, Civilta Cattolica (which called Küng's a heretic), and some delicate negotiations of the German Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference. The German bishops did not openly condemn the book, although in a published statement about it they said that "fundamental elements of the Catholic understanding of faith . . . are not preserved in this book." ² On this side of the Atlantic, American and Canadian scholars (Charles Davis, John McKenzie, Avery Dulles, Gregory Baum) contributed to this first phase by interpretative articles in major Catholic journals in this country. While not uncritical of Küng, most of these scholars at least agreed

¹ The Küng-Rahner debate has been carried on in the influential German monthly Stimmen der Zeit; Rahner's initial critique appeared in December, 1970; Küng's replied in the February, 1971, issue, and Rahner then answered Küng's in the March issue. The initial charges and counter-charges were described by L. Bruce van Voorst in "Küng's and Rahner: Dueling over Infallibility," The Christian Century, May 19, 1971, pp. 617-622. Subsequent developments in the dispute (somewhat less personal and more theological) are described by van Voorst in his article, "Follow-up on the Küng-Rahner Feud," The Christian Century, August 25, 1971, pp. 997-1000. For a thorough Roman Catholic analysis of the Küng-Rahner feud, see John Jay Hughes, "Infallible? An Inquiry Considered," Theological Studies, June, 1971, pp. 183-207.
² An English translation of the text of the German Bishops' statement is found in Hughes, op. cit., pp. 205-206.

428 - Infallibility Revisited

that in raising the issue of the meaning of infallibility, Küng was legitimately within the Catholic theological tradition.

A second phase of the debate has been marked by a number of lesser-known conservative European Catholic journals continuing to condemn Küng (primarily on the basis of Rahner's early critique), but happily in America as well as in Europe there has emerged more sustained theological consideration of the issues raised by Küng's work. The Paulist Press has made a major contribution with a book edited by John J. Kirvan, The Infallibility Debate. In spite of the fact that the Vatican has undertaken a "formal investigation" of Ming's book, it appears that the Roman Catholic theological community is going to have an opportunity to give Küng a fair hearing. To understand the framework of the debate let us first consider Küng's argument.

I

Küng begins his book by considering the fact of Humanae Vitae. Why would a Pope go against the majority opinion of his own commission appointed to study the birth control question? The clue, Küng feels, lies in Paul's own explanation that "we had to evaluate, bearing in mind both the duty and the freedom of our apostolic office, a doctrinal tradition that is not only centuries old but also recent, that of our three immediate predecessors." This was the point that the conservative minority on the Papal commission made, namely, that to repudiate the teachings of previous pontiffs would be "unintelligible" to the faithful of the church and would in fact be a "specious pretext."

The implications of this position for Pope Paul and the Vatican are clear. Infallibility has taken on a broader meaning than was specifically designated at Vatican I. Its efficacy now reaches into the whole framework of moral teaching of the ordinary teaching office of the church (magisterium ordinarium). Consequently, even when moral teachings were not proclaimed ex cathedra, they have come to be regarded in this view as a part of the universal, infallible Catholic faith. This renders the whole tradition wooden and makes it practically impossible for the church ever to change or substantially modify a moral teaching of previous periods.

The acute problem that this raises for Roman Catholic scholars is obvious. The church has reversed itself in the past. Vatican II

429 - Infallibility Revisited

departed radically (a) from statements of Gregory XVI and Pius IX on religious liberty; (b) from statements of Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV on the inerrancy of scripture; and (c) from Pius XI on the relationship to other Christian churches. The church thus seems to have an infallible teaching office that is sometimes fallible, and this in Küng's opinion is an untenable position for Roman Catholic ecclesiology and theology. How did the church get itself into this predicament? And what, if anything, can be done about it?

The roots of this problem appear to be threefold: (1) the strong centralist attitude of Pius IX that pressured Vatican I to declare papal infallibility, thereby providing the Roman Catholic Church with an impregnable rock of authority amid the intellectual, political, and social changes of nineteenth-century Europe; (2) the unhistorical, dogmatic theology of the scholastic textbooks that were so widely used in Catholic theological training from Vatican I to Vatican II; and (3) rationalist theories of knowledge, long normative in Catholic theology, which assumed that the ideal of knowledge is to be found in clear propositions. As influential as each of these sources was in pre-Vatican II Catholicism, Küng feels that history has clearly uncovered their deficiencies. The centralism of Pius IX rested on a theological and political conservatism which, if understandable at that time, is hardly adequate in a new theological and ecumenical climate. Textbook theology was unhistorical and inadequate in its scriptural foundations. The Cartesian model of knowledge has been shown to be superficial by modern studies in language analysis. On grounds of both scripture and tradition, Küng observes, the case for papal infallibility (narrowly defined or broadly defined) is "as scanty as it is brittle" (p. 122).

Küng is not an iconoclast about the Church's abiding truth and divine sanction. The clue, he maintains, is to recognize that infallibility does not mean impeccable, irreformable propositions, but rather "indeceivability" (Untrüglichkeit) a fundamental remaining of the church in truth, which is not annulled by individual errors (p. 181). This "indefectibility" is a truth of faith, but it does focus faith on the whole church and not on a given pontiff's inspiration. The church does not have an infallible pope, an infallible Bible (as some Protestants claim), or infallible councils (as some Orthodox claim). It does have, however, the promises of Christ and is maintained through the vicissitudes of history by the Spirit of God. This

430 - Infallibility Revisited

way of understanding infallibility is more honest, more biblical, and more ecumenical in its grasp of the church's truth; in effect, it uses the term infallibility to refer to the basic "un-fail-ability" of Christ's church. The final plea of the book is for a servant pope who can lead a servant church a church sustained by the many gifts of the Spirit; a church in which bishops preach the gospel and theologians cope with the complex issues of the church's teaching ministry. It is by recognizing the diverse gifts of the Spirit that the Christian community can live in faith, hope, and love.

II

Before turning to some of the issues raised by Küng's book, it is important to clarify two points for Protestant readers. The first is that in ways uncommon for most Roman Catholic theologians, Küng has been influenced by Protestant scholarship and is sensitive to Protestant criticism of the Roman Catholic tradition. He has a vision of the reunion of Christendom and feels that a recovery of the biblical roots of the Christian heritage can be the basis for such a rapprochement. His persistent criticisms of the triumphalism, fideism and exclusivist tendencies of the Roman Catholic Church have created enemies for him in the Roman Catholic camp, and his "Protestant" propensities have been noted by more than one of his critics. Küng wrote his doctoral dissertation at the Gregorian University on Karl Barth's doctrine of justification. He has been influenced by the in-depth work of Protestant biblical scholars in Germany; he has taught joint seminars with Jürgen Moltmann and Heiko Oberman of the Protestant theological faculty at Tübingen; he was exposed to American Protestant theology while serving as the Harry Emerson Fosdick Visiting Professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York in the spring of 1968. All of this is to say that although Küng strongly considers himself a Roman Catholic, his interest in and openness to Protestant thought gives a pungency to Karl Rahner's charge that with this book Küng's has departed from the Catholic theological heritage.

The second point to note is that although Küng has now raised the infallibility issue to an inescapable level, the topic has had heretofore a broad discussion in recent Roman Catholic thought. Charles Davis previously took a position similar to Küng's, but in leaving the church Davis eliminated the possibility of his critique

431 - Infallibility Revisited

having much influence on Roman Catholic ecclesiology. ³ In 1968, Francis Simons, the Dutch missionary bishop of Indore, India, rejected the idea of papal infallibility in his book Infallibility and the Evidence, but his fundamentalist approach to scripture limited the value of the book in Roman Catholic theological circles. Gustav Thils, the influential Belgian theologian at Louvain, critically probed a number of the issues in his 1969 work L'Infaillibilé pontificale. Source-Conditions-Limites; and the papers of a January, 1970, conference in Rome commemorating Vatican I have recently been edited by Enrico Castilli, L'Infaillibilité. Son aspect philosophique et theologique. Yves Congar published a lengthy article on the topic in the October, 1970, issue of Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques, which was done before he saw Küng's book, although he did manage to include an appendix on Küng's book which was generally favorable. Küng's book, therefore, has not appeared as the solitary voice of a lonely prophet. Its impact is due primarily to Küng's stature as a scholar, theologian, and church reformer.

III

For the sake of clarity, the major issues which have emerged thus far in the infallibility debate can be classified as ecclesiastical, theological, and methodological, and we shall consider them in that order. Concerning ecclesiology, we must first note the charge that Küng's book does not do justice to the subtleties and nuances of the notion of infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church. Some of Küng's critics argue, for example, that even if one wants to deny the extension of papal infallibility (as evidenced in the scholastic textbooks of theology), it is not necessary to reject the legitimacy of the more narrow Vatican I definition. The charge is that Küng's is too sweeping in his rejection of infallibility, too pessimistic in his appraisal of Vatican I, and not appreciative enough of how the terse statement of Vatican I was amplified by Vatican II (in Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium).

Although Küng is primarily concerned about the broader application of infallibility to the ordinary teaching office of the church, there is no doubt that he views Vatican I as a tragedy as far as Roman

³ See Davies' A Question of Conscience (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967), pp. 143-47, and his more recent work, Christ and the World Religions (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), p. 123.

432 - Infallibility Revisited

Catholic ecclesiology is concerned. In a remarkably candid way he analyzes the historical, political, and ecclesiastical factors which converged to pressure delegates for a declaration of papal infallibility. The unique circumstances of that Council began the process that has increasingly centralized church authority for the last one hundred years. Whatever else might be said of the Vatican I definition, ecclesiastically it clearly resolved the traditional Pope Council tension in favor of papal authority and gave Roman Catholics a symbol of authority and permanence amid the major intellectual upheavals of the nineteenth century. Küng, however, maintains that the Catholic Church paid too great a price for this declaration and in fact created a situation where "if he wants, the Pope can do everything, even without the Church" (p. 105). For Küng, the Vatican I declaration was both unwise and unnecessary, and certainly without scriptural foundation. Küng furthermore is not impressed with the Vatican II amplification of the Vatican I statement. He rather sees the language of Chapter III of Lumen Gentium as "juridical, institutional, disciplinary, Roman," and as a blanket insertion of scholastic textbook theology to blunt the more pastoral and ecumenical language of the first two chapters of that document.

It is true, of course, that during the triumphal years from 1870-1962, the concept of papal infallibility became more than a theological affirmation. It became a symbol of the Roman mystique and uniqueness. Perhaps in this way Küng has not shown as much sensitivity as he might have about the emotional overtones of the issue, but he seems persuaded that popular piety should not stand in the way of historical honesty or theological truth. Some of his critics have maintained that Küng presents a distorted view of the Vatican I decree, ⁴ and hold that the Vatican I pronouncement has sufficient conditions surrounding it to adequately safeguard the church from an absolutist pope. ⁵ Avery Dulles, while sharing Küng's apprehension about any broader understanding of infallibility, feels that it

⁴ The text of the Vatican I statement, as cited by Küng in Infallible?, p. 99, is as follows: "The Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining faith and morals: and therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves (and not from the consent of the Church)."
⁵ See Harry J. McSorley, The Infallibility Debate (New York: The Paulist Press, 1971), pp. 83-87.

433 - Infallibility Revisited

is not necessary to reject the Vatican I statement, and fears that in his total rejection of the concept Küng has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. ⁶ This point is also one in which Rahner has entered a caveat, arguing that without papal infallibility the Roman Catholic Church is doomed to become a sect amid other sects. In Küng's defense, however, Richard McBrien (one of America's more progressive Catholic theologians) has asserted that the "ecumenicity" of Vatican I is indeed dubious and that the mission of the church does not require papal infallibility in the sense proposed by Vatican I. ⁷

The debate on this point has clarified what a wide range of opinion there is in Roman Catholic theology about the meaning of infallibility. There are broad infallibilists, narrow infallibilists, symbolic infallibilists, and propositional infallibilists. Küng's work has forced men to declare themselves and to face up to the ambiguities and uncertainties in this area. John McKenzie, in his own inimitable style, has called the whole issue a "can of worms," and it has certainly become a topic which lays bare some radically different presuppositions about Roman Catholic ecclesiology. In this sense the book has had a polarizing effect in the Catholic world, and moderates are trying to keep open some middle ground between Küng and the Curia.

A second ecclesiastical issue is related to the starting point of Küng's book. Methodologically, Küng does base his book on the fact that Pope Paul issued Humanae Vitae against the advice of his own birth control commission. Küng assumes that the reason for this is Paul's acceptance of the rationale of the commission's conservative minority, namely, that to alter the historical position on birth control would go against a commonly held view in the church of the infallibility of the ordinary teaching office. Küng concludes, therefore, that a new mystique has emerged within Roman Catholocism which broadens the scope of infallibility. Rahner, by contrast, argued in his first Stimmen der Zeit piece, that Humanae Vitae has never been declared infallible by anyone, that it is a guideline to the faithful by the Pope functioning in a historically understood and legitimate role, and that Küng is unduly straining to raise the whole issue of infallibility from the fact of Humanae Vitae. The

⁶ "The Theological Issues," America, April 24.1971, pp. 427-28.
⁷ The Infallibility Debate, pp. 49-53.

434 - Infallibility Revisited

same point is made by Harry McSorley in The Infallibility Debate, when he argues that although Humanae Vitae is a "new factor" for Roman Catholics to consider in their evaluation of the papacy, it is a bad starting point for any discussion of the problem of infallibility. ⁸ The real issue, says McSorley, is a false conception of the magisterium, not the Vatican I doctrine of infallibility. Most interpreters, however, feel that these two problems cannot be so neatly separated, given the strong scholastic textbook emphasis from 1870-1962.

These attacks on Küng's approach are unconvincing. For all of the discussion of Küng's starting point, no one to my knowledge has specifically answered Küng's question: "Unless in fact there is a broader definition of infallibility now operative, how can one explain Humanae Vitae on theological grounds?" After reviewing the majority and minority reports of the Birth Control Commission," ⁹ Küng appears to be right in his evaluation of the issues involved. There may indeed be the need for fuller (and more detached) treatments of the infallibility issue, but for most Protestant readers Küng's work will appear to be directly on target.

IV

Theologically, most of the discussion in one way or another touches on the problem of religious truth. Küng denies that the deepest truth of the Christian church can ever be rationally distilled into clear, self-evident propositions, although he allows for the authoritative types of statements which: (1) recapitulate the history of salvation, or (2) defensively deny false symbolic interpretations of life. For Küng the normative language of faith must always be scripture. In scripture alone do we find the clues to God, man, and the world, and the Spirit of God will sustain Christ's church in a faithful understanding of the Word. Rahner has charged that Küng is ambiguous in his assertion that the promise of the Spirit means that the church will "abide in truth." How does the church abide in truth? What are its norms? Rahner feels that the sine qua non of the Catholic grasp of truth lies with the edifying role of post-biblical doctrinal developments and supremely with the magisterium of the church. He is, in other words, much more positively

⁸ Ibid., pp. 78-83.
⁹ Cf Robert Hoyt, ed., The Birth Control Debate (Kansas City: The National Catholic Reporter, 1968), pp. 25-101.

435 - Infallibility Revisited

oriented toward tradition than is Küng. Rahner's neo-scholasticism also enables him to be more rational in his sense of truth, and more confident that religious truth can be articulately presented and clearly understood. In Küng one senses the strong Barthian distrust of rationality, and he is also close to Barth in his emphasis on scripture.

Yves Congar, one of the most influential French Catholic theologians and an eminent ecclesiologist, expressed concern over Küng's strong biblical emphasis and called Küng's book a "sensational re-entry of Paulinism into Catholic thought." Congar recognizes that Küng's scriptural emphasis will be attractive to Protestants, but fears that Küng's distrust of tradition practically eliminates fruitful ecumenical possibilities with Orthodoxy. On the whole, however, Congar is positive in his appraisal of Küng, whereas Rahner, although mellowing, is still negative. ¹⁰

Gregory Baum has attempted to chart a via media between Küng and Rahner with his theory of the symbolic nature of religious truth." ¹¹ Although Protestants (especially those familiar with Tillich's theology) will find little new in Baum's perspective, he sees it as a way of justifying the development of doctrine, or, to put it differently, of explaining how the truth of the church is mutable. The church always needs to find new ways to express the truth of the gospel in different historical and cultural contexts. Küng, of course, could say that much, and in fact holds that it is precisely the "indefectibility" of the church which assures that the re-interpreted message will still be a faithful rendering of the gospel." ¹² Baum sees no reason, however, why this should not be called "infallibility." The difference between them is, however, more than semantic. Baum feels that Küng is too restrictive in his approach to religious truth with his heavy reliance upon scripture. Küng feels that Baum's theology has no real grounding apart from a nebulous "Spirit-centered, scripture-tested experience of the church." In this exchange, Baum emerges as a freer theologian than Küng, probably less concerned with history and structure, decidedly optimistic about the Spirit bringing fresh life and a new vocabulary to the church.

¹⁰ Cf. cougar, 'L Eglise de Hans Küng", Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques, October, 1970, pp. 693-706.
¹¹ See Baum's article "Truth in the Church-Küng, Rahner and Beyond," The Ecumenist, March-April, 1971, pp. 33-48. This article is reprinted in The Infallibility Debate, pp. 1-33.
¹² Küng, "A Reply to Gregory Baum," Commonwealth, June 25, 1971, p. 329.

436 - Infallibility Revisited

Central to the theological discussion, of course, is the issue of whether or not the church (or the Pope) can ever produce infallible, irreformable propositions. Küng's drawing on recent linguistic philosophy, maintains that no proposition per se can be regarded as the truth in an infallible, irreformable, untranslatable manner (Infallible?, pp. 157-173). This has bothered Rahner, and it is on this point that George Lindbeck has made an important contribution to the discussion. He has argued that Küng operates with an inadequate epistemology. Küng fails to distinguish, for example, between "propositions" and "sentences," or between convictions and the sets of words which are used to express them. A distinction of this kind enables Lindbeck to hold that for every religion there are some infallible affirmations, viz., those which guarantee or ground a religion. For Christianity one might affirm that "the full self-communication of the Ultimate Mystery under the conditions of human space and time is the man, Christ Jesus." ¹³ That infallible affirmation, however, is mutable insofar as it can be (and must be!) interpreted in different ways. These interpretations will always be derivative dogmas. The problem which Lindbeck sees in much Roman Catholic theology is that more is claimed for these derivative dogmas than is theologically justified. Lindbeck feels that Küng's legitimate objection to the claims made for derivative dogmas has caused him to deny more about propositional truth than is necessary to make his case.

V

Anyone who works with the literature of the infallibility debate quickly detects that underlying much of the controversy are some radically different assumptions about theological method. This has been implicit in much of what has already been said in this article and need not be belabored here. It is abundantly clear from Küng's earlier works that he takes biblical categories as normative, accepts and draws upon insights of critical biblical scholarship (both Protestant and Catholic), and deals with Roman Catholic thought primarily through historical analysis. While this means that Küng is probably the most intelligible and persuasive Roman Catholic theologian for a Protestant to read, it also goes against the grain

¹³ The Infallibility Debate, p. 120.

437 - Infallibility Revisited

of the scholasticism and transcendentalism that have prevailed in many centers of Roman Catholic thought.

Küng has observed, for example, that the real issues in his dispute with Rahner are methodological. The focal point seems to center on whether or not papal encyclicals, council documents, and selected quotations from church fathers should be decisive in the assessment of infallibility. Much of the confusion about Küng's work is the result of his historical critical method, and even though he has the long tradition of Tübingen Roman Catholic historical scholarship on his side, there are still those who feel that he may be too exclusively scriptural to be a Roman Catholic theologian.

The consequence of Küng's method, of course, is that it focuses a major reappraisal in Roman Catholic theological circles as to just what theology is. Rahner and others who have been influenced by him have freely admitted that they have worked within the Roman Catholic belief system. For them, theology is in the classic sense "faith seeking understanding," and the church through its magisterium sets the guidelines for understanding. As Congar observes, however, Küng's "questions the Catholicism we have received and lived." Küng questions the whole framework of Roman Catholic theological thinking, and for this reason is probably the most threatening Roman Catholic theologian since Loisy.

It would be presumptuous of any Protestant to make predictions about the outcome of such a heated dispute in the Roman Catholic camp. The debate is important for Protestants because of its ecumenical implications. Küng's theological method is similar to that followed in much Protestant theological investigation. His conclusions eliminate a major stumbling-block in Protestant-Roman Catholic ecumenical discussions and could provide (as George Lindbeck has pointed out) "all that is necessary in this area in order to safeguard both authority of the gospel and Christian freedom, both unity and diversity in the church." ¹⁴ Ecumenical relations will be potentially much more fruitful if Küng is not officially castigated in the present dispute. The long-time General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, William Visser 't Hooft, for example, observed after reading Küng's book that "if these ideas are taken up by Catholics, a completely new situation will arise. Then

¹⁴ "A Protestant Perspective," America, April 24, 1971, p. 432.

438 - Infallibility Revisited

Protestantism will no longer have any important reason for its protest." ¹⁵

The best that can be hoped for at this stage is that the theological issues are allowed to remain open and be sifted through the normal channels of debate. Rahner has announced that he is editing a book of essays on the topic of infallibility, and Küng has indicated that he is working on a volume on the Council of Trent, so both the range and the roots of the problem will continue to be in the forefront of Roman Catholic discussion. If Küng gains some episcopal support in Belgium and Holland, the Vatican will find it more difficult to deal with him in any inquisitional manner. Students of Roman Catholic history well recall how the church legislated against the Modernists of an earlier day rather than dealing with the theological issues, and perhaps the real test of whether there is a new spirit in post-Vatican II Catholicism will be seen in how the Vatican responds to the man and the issues in the infallibility debate.

¹⁵ Der Spiegel, January 4, 1971, p. 34.