No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
There is a growing literature on the sociology of the Catholic Church which attempts to explain that institution’s present condition in terms of tension between an official church and an unofficial one, both of which now exist inside what was once monolithic Catholicism. The work of Vallier on Latin American Catholicism and of Coleman on the Roman Catholic Church in Holland uses ‘two-church’ models, though their theoretical framework is integrationist, in a Durkheimian sense. More explicitly, and on the specific issue of the respective roles of hierarchy and theologians, Dulles argues in the chapter, ‘The two magisteria; an interim reflection’ of his recent book on ecclesiology, that there is need for ‘two kinds of teacher—the official teacher, whose task it is to establish the official doctrine of the Church; and the theologians, whose function is to investigate the questions about faith with the tools of scholarship’. The law which should rule the relationship of these two elements is a dialectical one of ‘relative autonomy within mutual acceptance’, (p. 127). Using the two-church model in a more general way, Peter McCaffery, in his excellent thesis, ‘Catholic radicalism and counter-radicalism’, has analysed one tension between official and unofficial mind-sets within Catholicism. With the help of surveys of the literature, opinions and activities of ten groups in the Catholic Church in England and nine in Holland he probes the mediating role played by more or less loyal Catholic opinion in these national churches. He concludes that an unofficial presence has occupied a space inside the Church between the official Church and its external critics.
1 Vallier, I., Catholicism, Social Control and Modernization in Latin America. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970Google Scholar. Coleman, J., The Evolution of Dutch Catholicism, 1958—1974. University of California, Berkeley, 1978Google Scholar.
2 Dulles, A., A Church to Believe In. Crossroads Publishing, N.Y., 1982Google Scholar.
3 McCaffery, P.G., ‘Catholic Radicalism and Counter‐Radicalism: a comparative study of England and the Netherlands’, D. Phil, thesis, University of Oxford.
4 Archer, A., The Two Catholic Churches: a study in oppression.
5 ‘A sociology of the future of Christianity might be possible (and personally I think it is); but this does not do away with the need to include a sociology of its history. Many contemporary events remain incomprehensible, if we do not go back to the debates and the struggles at the start of this century, and even of the last century’. Poulat, E., Revue francaise de sociologie, 1966, 7/3, p. 305.
6 Archer, op. cit., p. 1.
7 McSweeney, B., Roman Catholicism: the search for relevance. Oxford, Basil Black well, 1980Google Scholar.
8 Archer, op. cit., p. 81.
9 John XIII, Mater et magistra.
10 McSweeney, op. cit., p. 68.
11 Octogesimo adveniens, 35.
12 Rerum Novarum, Trans. J.R. Kirwan. With notes. CTS, 1983.
13 Archer, op. cit., p. 234.
14 Fierro, A., The Militant Gospel: an analysis of contemporary political theologies. SCM Press, London, 1976Google Scholar.
15 Aretin, von K.O., The Papacy in the Modern World, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1970, p. 186Google Scholar.
16 Minutes of CSG and letters held at Plater College, Oxford. The quotations throughout these paragraphs are from documents in this archive.
17 McHugh, F.P., ‘The changing social role of the Catholic church in England, 1958—1982.’ Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Divinity, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar.
18 Troeltsch, E., The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Trans. Wyon, O. 1931.
You have
Access