Dogma: Development or Detention?

What is dogma? Frequently, in modernity one will hear people mocking the idea of dogma: seen as some arbitrary rule that detains free intellectual pursuit. Dogma is also often seen as something exclusively religious—but this seems dubious. From my understanding a dogma properly speaking is something that usually comes after deliberation of some sort, as a elaborated conclusion to an investigation. This conclusion is stated in such a way that it given the right understanding of the premises, the conclusion cannot be any other way. However, the conclusion could still be wrong if the premises themselves or the understanding of them are wrong. This then would mean that dogma inhabits all disciplines—and, as such scientists are no less dogmatic than theologians.

– Lyceum Institute Member (paraphrased).

Critics of every stripe love using the words “dogma” and its adjectival derivative, “dogmatic”, as battering rams against the gates of any institution or argument. To be “dogmatic” is to be authoritarian; to have a “dogma” is to insist upon an unthinking way of acting. But is this a misnomer? Does this use of the word conflate a real threat—inhibitions against thinking—with a real benefit?

The Catholic tradition, in particular, holds dogmas as certain developments of teaching which function “as lights along the path of faith“ that “illuminate it and make it secure” (CCC 89). But this use does not exhaust the meaning of the word; rather, it is (as suggested above), a certain instance but, just as doctrine (a teaching) is not exclusive to religion, neither, then, is dogma. Rather, dogma consists in the elaboration or development—the working out—of a conclusion from premises. But just what does this “working out” or a conclusion mean?

Development of Doctrine

In his 1845 Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, St. John Henry Cardinal Newman proposed seven criteria to distinguish the authentic development of a doctrine. In summary, they are:

• Preservation of Type: authentic development must preserve the original essence of the doctrine: it cannot become a teaching about something entirely other.
• Continuity of Principles: development must be consistent with the originating principles; that is, the starting point from which the doctrine develops cannot ever be abandoned.
• Power of Assimilation: a true development shows the ability of a doctrine to absorb new insights and experiences; these are sources contributing to growth of the doctrine.
• Logical Sequence: developments should logically follow from the original doctrine, such that the relation between parts can be intelligibly grasped by minds across time.
• Anticipation of its own Future: early forms of doctrinal development should anticipate the future not as the unpredictable what-is-to-come, but rather as the teleological ordering towards-which it is in order that it be at all.
• Conservative Action upon its Past: developments should conserve the teachings of the past—at most, deviating them only inasmuch as circumstances require their truths to be applied differently.
• Chronic Vigor: all authentic developments exhibit ongoing vitality and relevance: if we “develop” a doctrine into obsolescence, we have misapprehended its doctrinal character.

Though Newman exposits these characteristics specifically with reference to Christian doctrine, they appear pertinent to all forms of intellectual development. 

Join our Conversation

Can we apply these principles of Newman to our own fields and studies? Are there teachings that we see having developed in our traditions, or even in our own disciplines or lives? Do these seven criteria provide a sound metric to judge contemporary controversies? Come share your thoughts with us this evening (24 January 2024) at the Lyceum Institute Philosophical Happy Hour!