Newman Studies Journal

Daniel J. Finucane's Sensus Fidelium is an informative survey of post-conciliar theological approaches to the sensus fidelium. Constituted of six chapters, the first, an introduction, is followed by two historical chapters (chapters two and three) that give examples of the importance of the sensus fidelium in the life of the Catholic Church and in the writings of her theologians from the New Testament to Vatican II. Chapter four provides criteria for an adequate understanding of the concept based on the documents of Vatican II. Chapter five surveys dozens of post-conciliar authors on the subject, while the last chapter (chapter six) puts some analytical shape to the previous chapter.

By all available indicators, the book is a doctoral dissertation, and, as such, carries with it both the virtues and vices of one. Its focus is clear. Its treatment of the topic is sustained. An impressive amount of reading lies behind the work, which enables readers to benefit not only from Finucane's surveys of authors on the subject, but also from the extensive forty-page works cited.

At 491 pages (excluding notes), however, the book would have benefited from some serious pruning to avoid repetition, increased selectivity in authors treated, and more analysis of the material presented. The 187 pages of chapter five contain dozens (over thirty) subsections dedicated to a relevant theologian's view on the sensus fidelium. There are no summaries or comparative analyses that might help the reader to situate the authors, to see wherein lies a consensus if one exists, or simply to identify their commonalities and differences. While Finucane cannot be faulted for giving voice to some unremarkable authors, the reader would like to know why these figures are relevant here, or what they have contributed to the discussion, relative to others. It is only in the last chapter that some minimal shape is given to these authors as those who emphasize either 1) the magisterium, or 2) the independence of the laity, or 3) the necessity of interaction between the two.

Ultimately, Finucane's work is an extensive status quaestionis. It surveys more than it proposes. It provides a wealth of data that is difficult to access, not so much because of the book's length, but because the salient principles of the varying viewpoints are not highlighted and brought into discussion. Indeed, figures such as Yves Congar and Leo Scheffczyk have very different things to say about the sensus fidelium from, say, Margaret Farley and Richard McCormick. [End Page 166] However, instead of summarizing theirs and dozens of other views, might it not have been better to select and focus on fewer authors, penetrating more deeply into the theological or philosophical presuppositions on each side, which might help get to the root of the debate? The book is immersed in the vocabulary of power: who has authority and what kind? Who is active and who is passive? Who is excluded and included? Who participates? Who contributes? Who is taken seriously?, etc. These are not unimportant questions, but, to this reader at least, they are secondary to the life of faith and to the mission of the church. Thankfully, Finucane draws the reader's attention to the objection made by the magisterium and other theologians that the sensus fidelium cannot be surmised from general opinion polls amongst Catholics. But the serious question raised by someone like Thomas Dubay, namely, "Who are the faithful?" is not pursued. What does it mean to faithfully adhere to God's word, and how does that adherence capacitate one—and by extension a community—to make judgments about the content of the faith? A more thoroughgoing treatment of how a few representative theologians from each side understand revelation, faith, its act and object, grace, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (particularly the intellectual ones), would have laid the groundwork for better understanding the serious ecclesiological differences that...