These past decades has seen an uprising in dissent from the Christian academia – particularly Catholic institutions. Well, okay, that’s not exactly true – dissent has always been present in the academia throughout the history of the Church.

But it has become a rather critical moment for the existence and sustenance of such Catholic academic institutions. Academicians in such institutions claim that when dissent is prohibited and freedom of intellectual inquiry is curtailed, it places the institutions at a great disadvantage in terms of their academic competence and competitiveness. This would consequently affect student intake and funding. Thus, the eventual existence of entire academic institutions is jeapordised.

It does not of course mean that variances from official ecclesiastical positions are not inherently present in Protestant-based academic institutions. It is just that in such circles, there has never been a Magisterium to speak of, hence no censure and no licensing of religious teachers. If an academic scholar was dismissed in a more confessional Protestant setting, he would probably not have a problem finding another tenured position in a less confessional environment. But this is not the case with the Catholic setting, wherein teachers imparting knowledge pertaining to faith and morals are licensed by the Vatican to teach. Where their teachings clearly do not echo the Church Magisterium and such dissent bears considerable gravitational consequence, their licences are revoked.

The Vatican has been vigilant in silencing such dissent, an exercise which some claim is in part a successfully imposed exercise because of Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and who sits on the Chair of the Apostle Peter as Pope Benedict XVI today. The likes of Hans Küng, Charles E. Curran and Leonardo Boff have tasted, in no small measure, the medicinal treatment of Ratzinger’s inquisition.

So is disproportionate dissent to be permitted? If not, how would the Church be able to sustain the relevant existence of such academic institutions subject to curial inquiry?

In the final analysis, it really is a matter of priority of relevance. It is not an issue of relevance per se, but rather, deciding on what priorities are relevant for the consideration of the Church as the guardian of truth.

The rationale of the Church for such a jealous guardianship over the teachings pertaining to faith and morals stems from the understanding that faith informs reason, and not vice versa. Reason can never be the arbiter of truth, and neither can it exist apart from the truth claims of the faith.

Whilst the idea of the kerygmatic prerogative of the Church may come across as condescending to academic inquirers, Christian academia is called to retain its memory that our epistemological advancements begin with the point of divine revelation rather than vain human ability or capacity. On this point, the Church cannot allow for the Christian academia to gravitate towards that which has now become a thoroughly secular endeavour – and a highly exalted one at that.

Hence, the bidding abides for Christian thinkers to think, feel, and act with the Church. For those without a Magisterium, be thankful that you're liberated to liberalise – but remember that what you say is not necessarily good for the eternal glory of the Church.