By Prof. Januarius Asongu

Abstract

Throughout modern Catholic history, a recurring pattern appears to emerge: theologians who defend institutional orthodoxy often rise to positions of ecclesial authority, while those who challenge prevailing doctrines or structures frequently encounter sanctions, marginalization, or exclusion. The contrasting trajectories of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Hans Küng, Bernard Häring, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran, and others exemplify this phenomenon. This article employs Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR) to investigate whether this pattern reflects merely institutional self-preservation or whether it reveals deeper tensions between truth, authority, and ecclesial development. CSR argues that human institutions are simultaneously necessary for preserving truth and vulnerable to epistemic fracture, the tendency of individuals and communities to distort reality through power, fear, ideology, and self-interest. The article contends that the historical tension between apologists and critics should not be understood as a simple conflict between orthodoxy and dissent but as a dynamic struggle within the Church's pursuit of truth. While institutional continuity requires guardians of tradition, authentic development often emerges through the prophetic challenge of critics. The Church flourishes when authority and critique exist in creative tension rather than mutual exclusion.

Keywords: Critical Synthetic Realism, ecclesiology, authority, Hans Küng, Benedict XVI, Leonardo Boff, epistemic fracture, epistemic sovereignty, theology, Church reform

Introduction

The history of Christianity reveals a persistent tension between institutional stability and prophetic criticism. Ecclesiastical institutions require continuity, doctrinal coherence, and organizational authority to survive across centuries. Yet the same institutions depend upon internal criticism to correct errors, expose abuses, and stimulate theological development.

This tension is particularly visible in the modern Catholic Church. During the twentieth century, several prominent theologians who questioned aspects of official teaching or ecclesial governance encountered disciplinary action. Hans Küng lost his missio canonica following his critique of papal infallibility. Leonardo Boff faced sanctions related to liberation theology. Charles Curran lost authorization to teach Catholic theology. Bernard Häring endured sustained scrutiny because of his innovative moral theology.

Conversely, theologians whose work largely defended and articulated official doctrine often rose to positions of influence. Most notably, Joseph Ratzinger became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and subsequently Pope Benedict XVI.

This historical pattern raises important questions. Why do institutional critics frequently experience marginalization while defenders of orthodoxy often receive promotion? Does this pattern reflect the legitimate preservation of doctrinal integrity, or does it reveal the operation of power within ecclesial institutions? More fundamentally, how should the Church balance institutional authority and theological critique?

This article addresses these questions through the lens of Critical Synthetic Realism.

Critical Synthetic Realism and Ecclesial Authority

Critical Synthetic Realism begins with the conviction that reality exists independently of human perception while recognizing that all human knowledge remains fallible and incomplete. Human beings do not create reality, but neither do they possess perfect access to it.

CSR therefore rejects both absolutism and relativism.

On the one hand, truth exists objectively. On the other hand, human interpretations of truth are always susceptible to distortion.

The central concept explaining this distortion is Epistemic Fracture (EF). Epistemic Fracture refers to the tendency of persons and institutions to misperceive, distort, or selectively appropriate reality due to fear, ideology, self-interest, social pressure, or the desire for power.

Because Epistemic Fracture affects both individuals and institutions, no ecclesial structure can claim immunity from error. Yet institutions remain indispensable because they preserve collective memory, doctrinal continuity, and communal identity.

The Church therefore occupies a paradoxical position. It is simultaneously a guardian of truth and a participant in humanity's fractured condition.

CSR calls this condition institutional fallibilism.

The Institutional Logic of Orthodoxy

The promotion of apologists and defenders of orthodoxy should not be interpreted merely as favoritism.

Institutions exist to preserve continuity.

The Catholic Church understands itself not simply as an academic society but as the custodian of divine revelation entrusted through apostolic succession. Consequently, ecclesial authorities naturally prefer leaders who demonstrate confidence in established doctrine.

From an institutional perspective, theologians who challenge settled teachings may appear to threaten unity.

Joseph Ratzinger exemplified this role of guardian. Throughout his theological career, he argued that Christianity must preserve continuity with apostolic tradition and resist the fragmentation produced by modern relativism. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he viewed doctrinal clarity as essential to the Church's mission.

Within CSR, such concerns possess legitimacy. Institutions require mechanisms that protect foundational truths against ideological drift.

Without guardians of continuity, traditions risk dissolution.

The Prophetic Function of Institutional Critics

Yet CSR also insists that institutions are vulnerable to epistemic fracture.

Power can obscure truth.

Institutional interests can become confused with divine mandates.

Historical examples illustrate this reality. Ecclesiastical authorities once condemned Galileo. Church leaders defended political arrangements later recognized as unjust. Resistance frequently accompanied developments that are now regarded as legitimate expressions of doctrinal growth.

Critics such as Hans Küng, Bernard Häring, and Leonardo Boff often functioned as prophetic voices seeking to expose limitations within existing frameworks.

Küng questioned the practical and theological implications of papal infallibility.

Häring emphasized conscience and personal responsibility within moral theology.

Boff highlighted structural injustice and the preferential option for the poor.

Whether one agrees with their conclusions is secondary to recognizing their ecclesial function. Their critiques forced the Church to confront questions that otherwise might have remained unexamined.

From a CSR perspective, criticism serves as a corrective mechanism against institutional epistemic fracture.

Epistemic Sovereignty and the Vocation of the Theologian

CSR introduces the concept of Epistemic Sovereignty (ES), defined as the capacity of persons and communities to pursue truth without undue domination by ideology, coercion, or institutional pressure.

Theologians occupy a unique position within this framework.

Their vocation requires fidelity both to tradition and to truth.

When theologians become mere defenders of institutional authority, theology risks degenerating into apologetics devoid of critical reflection.

Conversely, when theologians reject all institutional constraints, theology risks becoming detached from the communal tradition that gives it meaning.

The genuine theologian therefore inhabits a difficult middle ground.

He or she must remain sufficiently connected to the tradition to understand it and sufficiently free to critique it.

This tension explains why many influential theologians experience conflict with ecclesiastical authorities.

The pursuit of truth often requires challenging assumptions embedded within institutional structures.

Benedict XVI and Hans Küng: A CSR Comparison

The relationship between Benedict XVI and Hans Küng illustrates the complexity of this dynamic.

Both men emerged from similar intellectual contexts and participated in the reforms associated with Vatican II.

Yet their trajectories diverged dramatically.

Ratzinger increasingly emphasized continuity, doctrinal coherence, and the dangers of relativism.

Küng increasingly stressed reform, accountability, and the need for critical reassessment of authority.

Traditional narratives often portray one as defender and the other as dissenter.

CSR rejects this binary.

Both theologians can be understood as responding to different manifestations of epistemic fracture.

Ratzinger sought to prevent the fragmentation of truth through relativism.

Küng sought to prevent the ossification of truth through institutional rigidity.

The tragedy lies not in their disagreement but in the inability of ecclesial structures to sustain a more constructive dialogue between these complementary concerns.

Toward a Critical Synthetic Ecclesiology

A Critical Synthetic Realist ecclesiology would reject both authoritarianism and perpetual dissent.

Authoritarianism assumes that institutional authority possesses sufficient safeguards against error.

Perpetual dissent assumes that critique alone guarantees truth.

Both assumptions are flawed.

Instead, CSR proposes a model of ecclesial life grounded in mutual correctability.

Institutional leaders must remain open to prophetic criticism.

Critics must remain accountable to the broader tradition.

Authority and critique should function as complementary rather than antagonistic forces.

The Church advances toward truth not through the victory of one side over the other but through an ongoing process of critical synthesis.

Conclusion

The differing fates of apologists and institutional critics reveal a fundamental tension within ecclesial life. Institutions naturally reward those who reinforce continuity and often resist those who challenge established assumptions. Yet the history of Christianity demonstrates that both roles are indispensable.

Through the lens of Critical Synthetic Realism, the conflict between defenders of orthodoxy and institutional critics is not merely political or ideological. It reflects the deeper human struggle to discern truth within conditions of epistemic fracture.

The Church requires guardians of tradition such as Benedict XVI. It also requires critics such as Hans Küng, Bernard Häring, and Leonardo Boff.

When either role is suppressed, the pursuit of truth suffers.

The future health of the Church depends not upon the triumph of authority over criticism or criticism over authority, but upon the cultivation of epistemic sovereignty, mutual correction, and a shared commitment to reality as it is rather than as power wishes it to be.

References

Boff, L. (1985). Church: Charism and Power. New York: Crossroad.

Curran, C. (2006). The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Häring, B. (1978). Free and Faithful in Christ. New York: Seabury Press.

Küng, H. (1971). Infallible? An Inquiry. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ratzinger, J. (1987). The Nature and Mission of Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

Ratzinger, J. (2005). Values in a Time of Upheaval. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

Asongu, J. (2026). The Splendor of Truth: A Critical Philosophy of Knowledge and Global Agency. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Asongu, J. (2026). Beyond Doctrine: A Critical-Liberative Theology of Faith and Emancipation. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Asongu, J. (2026). Critical Synthetic Realism: A Systematic Philosophy of Truth, Personhood, and Human Flourishing. London: Generis Publishing.