Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (1930–2019) was one of Germany’s foremost postwar legal scholars. He coined or popularized key terms and ideas that have left their mark on postwar German political debate to an extent matched by only few, from the chain of legitimation to the concept of the constitution as an ordering frame, the importance of the idea of subsidiarity in the European Union’s political competency, and his insistence that society must continuously work toward agreement on the things that cannot be voted on: the ultimate agreements in society that lie beyond the ballot box. Böckenförde was a lifelong commentator on Catholic affairs in Germany and involved in several important inner-Catholic reform initiatives. At the age of thirty-one, he became known to a wider German public with an article that presented a critical historical appraisal of the role of the Catholic Church under National Socialism. While still a postdoc, he co-authored a widely publicized critique of Jesuit Gustav Gundlach’s justification on theological grounds of a war of nuclear deterrence. In 1968, he was the first to publish a German edition of De Libertate Religiosa, the final declaration of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), and provided an authoritative commentary.

This essay forms the basis for the case that contemporary application of the concept of the sensus fidelium as a vehicle for transmitting accurate doctrine relies primarily on shifts in power structures in the first several centuries of the church. By investigating two documents depicting public theological dialogues in the presence of both clergy and laity, Origen's Dialogue with Heraclides from the third century and the Dialogue of Heraclian from the fourth century, I argue that the intersection of a widening gap between lay and clergy with a shrinking importance in public theological debate served actually to relocate the sensus fidelium from the efforts of powerful clergy into the lived churchly practices of the laity.

The long-term ecclesiological trajectory of Pope Francis is towards a synodal Church. He has chosen this topic for the next World Synod of Bishops in 2022. Though a key theme of his pontificate, synodality is a contested notion. In 2018 the International Theological Commission (ITC) published its reflections on synodality in the life and mission of the Church. This article traces the understanding of synodality in the ITC document, offers an appraisal, and looks at some of the challenges facing Francis’ synodal project.

This article surveys the evolution of the Catholic Church's official response to same-sex relations over the last two centuries. While the church has not altered its condemnation of same-sex relations, the justifications it offers for this negative judgment have shifted substantially, and they have moved, especially recently, in a direction that makes possible the acceptance of same-sex relations at some future—and perhaps not too-distant—date. This article explores the manualist tradition of the nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth centuries; twentieth-century developments in canon law; and the period of retrenchment and reaction under popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Its final section looks at developments under Pope Francis. It closes by considering the way the church's teaching shifted over the course of its history—penance and the forgiveness of sins; anti-Semitism; and the sin against natural-law of taking interest on a loan (usury). It proposes that we might witness the church undergo a similar shift on same-sex relations.

The concept of “dissent” is of recent coinage and narrow use in Catholic theology. However, since rereadings of Catholic tradition through the lens of cultural studies have revealed its constitutive plurality, we are faced with a profound tension between a critical description of ecclesial polyphony and the normative ideals of unity and consensus. This interdisciplinary reappraisal of tradition raises far-reaching theological questions: Do we necessarily have to refer to inner-ecclesial polyphony as “dissent”? Does “dissent” silently rely on (and thus reinforce) established hierarchies of authority in the church? What could be counterhegemonic frameworks that resist entrenched power/knowledge regimes in the church? In which ways could “dissent” be reconceived to allow for a constructive approach to inner-ecclesial plurality? Once we raise questions such as these, we begin to see that Catholic theology lacks adequate models for a reflection of ecclesial polyphony in its full complexity. This roundtable addresses this lacuna: it offers critical case studies of historical and contemporary forms of “dissent” within the church, and it engages the theological and ecclesiological issues at stake.

Canon law has had a negative press for many years and is often seen as insensitive, unnecessary or static. This article looks at the origins and sources of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, what it covers, and who is expected to hear it. It considers to what extent canon law finds a resonance in the minds and hearts of the People of God, ways in which the echo is heard or not, and the response of the supreme legislator to this. The idea of ‘law in theory’ and ‘law in action’ is explored in relation to a particularly neuralgic issue today, that of governance, and then three issues are considered where there continue to be particular problems of reception.

The potential unwieldiness of popular religiosity and devotional spirituality and their ambiguous relationship with the liturgy have made them objects of perennial ecclesiastical concern. More recently, magisterial discussion of popular religiosity has come to value more positively its cultural and anthropological value and its spiritual content. The reforms of Vatican II were followed by a significant demise in devotionalism amongst Northern European and North American Catholics, yet demographic change and other factors have resulted in the resurgence of popular religious devotions. Manifestations of grassroots faith may express valuable convictions and important insights, including the value of the collective and the non‐verbal. However, these values may be easily dismissed by social elites for aesthetic reasons, or by academic theologians for reasons of the cultural milieu and preferences of academia. Given the preference of the theological tradition for lexical intelligibility, and the symbolic and the physical nature of many kinds of popular religiosity, how the sub‐disciplines of theology may now responsibly and respectfully treat these perduring phenomena is not clear. A healthy relationship between the fides qua and the fides quae demands taking seriously the sensus fidelium, understood as a broad experience that embraces the daily lives and local circumstances of Christians as well as their worship. The contemporary construal of the discipline of Christian Spirituality, understood as the study of Christian experience, promises to provide a multidisciplinary approach that can address the topic of popular religiosity and devotional practice.

Recent scholarship has reflected upon the relationship between sensus fidelium and scripture, but the Old Testament appears marginalized in this undertaking. This essay argues that the church can learn from Israel's faith for the concept of sensus fidelium. It presents the ‘canonical approach’ as an exegetical tool to bring the church as a reading community into conversation with many generations of believers in Israel and its own tradition. Furthermore, it provides one example of how a contemporary interpretation of an Old Testament text might deepen the understanding of the infallibility of the whole church in relation to its failures and sins.

This paper argues that the record of theological dissent at Trent and Vatican I are positive and fruitful sources of theological reflection on the sensus fidelium. Not only do these “minority” voices (minority in the literal sense of opposing a majority group or opinion) help us to accurately interpret the drafts and final documents of these councils, but these minority figures can sometimes preserve the sensus fidelium through their calls for various concessions from the majority.

First, I revisit Trent's decree on Scripture (1546). Due to the interventions of two Italians (Nacchianti, the Bishop of Chioggia, and Bonuccio, the General of the Servites), the question of the relationship between scripture and tradition was left open – that is, the “two‐source” partim‐partim theory was not dogmatically enshrined. This was an important episode wherein a tiny minority gained a critical concession. I argue that this minority intervention bore fruit not only in a final Tridentine document that better echoed the faith of the ages, but also bore fruit centuries later at Vatican II in Dei verbum.

Second, I argue that the minority at Vatican I protected the Church from extreme ultramontanism. This relatively large and intellectually powerful minority, many of them rooted in Gallicanism, played a key role in tempering a dogmatic proclamation that was further balanced and interpreted a century later in Lumen gentium and Christus Dominus.

I conclude by suggesting theologians should look for ways in which the minority at Vatican II could serve future generations of Catholics in unforeseen ways.

Newman's article, ‘On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine’, which appeared in the Rambler in July 1859, has become a natural reference point when people consider the sensus fidelium. It is helpful, therefore, to know how the article came to be written and important to be clear about what it actually said. Newman was not supporting some loose exercise in democracy, but was pointing to a vital process for the health of the Church, and encouraging the lay faithful and their pastors to work together. There are lessons too to be learnt from the way people behaved in the aftermath of the controversy. The episode may also be seen as illustrating Newman's life in a nutshell.