The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA 'Dallas experiment' in orthodoxy and openness
by John L Allen Jr on Feb. 05, 2010
In Georges Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest, the elderly Curé de Torcy gives his young priest friend a bit of advice about proclaiming the Gospel: "The Word of God is a red-hot iron," he says. "Truth is meant to save you first, and the comfort comes later."
One could probably craft a meditation on the state of the Catholic soul today in terms of the tension between those two values -- truth and comfort. We want the church to offer comfort, which among other things implies that Catholics shouldn't brutalize one another in internal tribal warfare. Yet we also want the church to be bold in proclaiming the truth that saves, which inevitably means that sometimes lines have to be drawn and feelings may be bruised.
The $64,000 question is, can we do both? Can the Catholic church be both the "sacrament of the unity of the human race" and a fearless evangelical force?
One place to watch these tensions play out is the University of Dallas, where I took part in a panel discussion Monday night devoted to "the identity of a Catholic university." The point of departure was Bishop Kevin Farrell's commencement address last May, in which he warned against "dogmatism, closed mindedness, judgmentalism, [and] suspicion of another's motives" in the life of a Catholic university.
Here's what makes the situation especially interesting.
A strong current in Catholic life these days is what I've called "evangelical Catholicism," meaning a drive for clarity and courage about Catholic identity. It's both top-down, the most important policy-setting instinct in Catholicism, and also bottom-up, especially palpable among a cohort of younger Catholics usually tagged the "John Paul II generation."
Dallas has just such an evangelical ethos. Given its recent history and the kind of person it tends to attract, the university is popularly regarded as a "conservative" alternative to Catholic institutions sometimes seen as more secular and liberal. (I chatted with one young man Monday night, for example, who told me there's a cluster of students at UD from California who came here because they didn't feel they could find a "serious" Catholic university back home.)
In other words, if you're looking for an experiment as to whether it's possible to be both unapologetically Catholic and yet civil in engaging disagreement, the University of Dallas represents a mighty interesting laboratory.
Moreover, the powers that be seem to understand that. Back in 2001, the staff of what was then called the "Institute for Religious and Pastoral Studies" defected to the new Ave Maria College, and then-Bishop Charles Grahmann called their exodus a "blessing." (The bishop of Dallas is also the chancellor of the university.)
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Grahmann said the leaders of the institute had become "advocates of an ideal orthodoxy and built walls that no one could penetrate." When the dust settled, the result was a new School of Ministry self-consciously designed to be more mainstream.
Farrell's commencement address last May forms part of the same picture.
"We need to be self-critical and realize that no one of us has the only approach to Catholicism," Farrell said. (His address was published in Origins in August). "Honest debate, not confrontation -- true dialogue where we seek to understand the other, not facile condemnation -- should be the overarching way we move forward."
"The word 'heretic' has been reserved for precious few people in our Catholic tradition," Farrell said, rejecting what he called "verbal fratricide" and a tendency to become "smug, dismissive and righteous" about the Catholic intellectual tradition.
"No theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," Farrell said.
Obviously, Farrell didn't craft these remarks in a vacuum. He challenged "verbal fratricide" because, at least in the eyes of some, that occasionally describes the climate at the University of Dallas. As one insider put it to me, the official motto is "The Catholic University for Independent Thinkers," but in practice it can feel like a university for people who think only one way about being Catholic.
To be sure, Farrell is no milquetoast on Catholic identity. Recall that he and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth issued a joint pastoral letter on Catholics and politics in October 2008, calling abortion "the defining moral issue, not just of today but of the last 35 years." It was widely seen as a warning to Catholics about supporting Obama (or, at least, doing so uncritically), and led to protests outside the chancery.
Yet Farrell's commencement address amounted to a plea to blend orthodoxy with openness, clarity with generosity of spirit. That's a beguiling vision, but just because somebody decrees it doesn't automatically make it so.
I spoke with a few students and faculty on Monday night who embody the evangelical outlook, and who told me they feel stigmatized by some elements in the university's leadership. They worry that what's precious to them about the university, meaning its robust Catholicity, may be at risk. Meanwhile, others told me they're weary of feeling that their orthodoxy is constantly under a microscope, and that someone always seems ready to question their Catholic credentials over any disagreement, however trivial.
In other words, things are still messy. Yet the reality is that there are precious few places where what we might call the "evangelicals" and the "moderates" in the Catholic world actually live cheek by jowl in significant numbers, and the tensions at UD are therefore also an index of possibility -- the possibility that the university could offer an object lesson in how truth and comfort, clarity and dialogue, can coexist.
Especially with a new university president taking over on March 1, the "Dallas experiment" bears watching.
* * *
As a footnote, I may have inadvertently added fuel to the fire by introducing something new to fight over: My phrase "Taliban Catholicism" to capture a certain trajectory within the church. (At least I think I coined the term, though for all I know somebody else got there first.)
In my brief remarks Monday night, I applauded Farrell's vision, underscoring it with a bit of rhetoric that's become part of my standard stump speech. A defining challenge for the church these days, I said, is to craft a synthesis between entirely legitimate hunger for identity on the one hand, and engagement with the great social movements of the time on the other.
That synthesis, I said, has to involve striking a balance between two extremes. Here's how I described them:
"On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms 'Catholicism Lite,' meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularized religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call 'Taliban Catholicism,' meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world."
Some in the audience chuckled, but others weren't so amused. One younger faculty member rose during the Q&A period to offer a thoughtful, and heartfelt, challenge:
"To say things with clarity is not to be the Catholic Taliban," she said, adding that she found the phrase "profoundly offensive."
"There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church," she said, "but we have had an epidemic of Catholicism Lite for the last 30 years." Younger Catholics, she insisted, should not be dismissed as fanatics simply because they seek "fidelity and clarity."
Her remarks were met with applause, suggesting she had struck a chord, though others later pulled me aside to say they found them strident. (By the way, it turns out the questioner is a relative of a friend of mine in Rome ... small world.)
For the record, she's not the first person who's objected to the term "Taliban Catholicism," just as others protested when Weigel first started talking about "Catholicism Lite." Of course, when pundits employ such sound-bites, part of the point is to provoke a reaction, so it would be disingenuous to proclaim shock that anyone could take offense.
That said, let me offer two clarifications that may help.
First, at least when I use them, the phrases "Catholicism Lite" and "Taliban Catholicism" are not intended to describe real people. Instead, I understand them as states of mind, instincts, and psychological tendencies -- potential distortions in Catholic life that can flare up anywhere if we're not careful.
To be honest, there's probably a little Catholic Lite and a little Taliban in all of us.
Second, I suspect many people assume that by "Catholicism Lite" I mean the Catholic left, and by "Taliban Catholicism" the church's conservatives. Not so.
In fact, there's a right-wing form of Catholicism Lite that's just as watered-down and sold out to secularism as its kissing cousin on the left. In the States, it can take the form of a country club Republican Catholicism -- untroubled by the inequities of global free-market capitalism, quite at home with anti-immigrant rhetoric, the death penalty, and the use of armed force.
At least in my mind, the defining feature of "Catholicism Lite" is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one's cues from secular culture rather than the faith. No ideological camp has a monopoly on that.
Similarly, there's a Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice -- a liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" that can easily shade off into rage. Try telling a certain kind of Catholic liberal that Benedict XVI isn't actually "rolling back the clock" on Vatican II, for example, and you'll want to duck and cover before the shooting starts.
Bottom line: When I talk about "Taliban Catholicism," I know I'm playing with fire -- but the point is to invite an examination of conscience across the board, myself very much included, not to slur one side or the other in Catholic debates.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Well said...
Well said...
John Allen’s article is a bit
John Allen’s article is a bit disturbing. It is one thing to be objective in reporting, “This side said this” and “This side said that,” but it is quite another task to write a column of opinion, as this article is, and try to sit on the fence while defending one's own labels in the rhetoric war, creating new labels as in “evangelical Catholic” to confuse the situation even more, making references to my friend as in Weigel or she’s related to another friend (probably a church conservative in Rome), seeing meaning in a local bishop’s speech without researching his actions, making a brief speech-making trip to one place and finding some degree of hopeful moderation there when, in reality, there may be none. It is quite a disjointed mish-mash, John, and it doesn’t bring clarity to anything. There is no experiment in at the University of Dallas (locals don't see it). You don’t find any Catholics who advocate church reform teaching or speaking there. If you visit during the political season, you’ll see just how rightwing the students can get since virtually all come from home schooling, very consevative communities. I don’t feel the column is Allen at his best either in opinion or reporting.
Not well said. Normally I
Not well said. Normally I have nothing but favorable comments about John Allen's reports. But his term "Taliban Catholic" doesn't illuminate nor help strengthen my faith. Time to stop using that term.
What a comforting message:
What a comforting message: "how truth and comfort, clarity and dialogue, can coexist." I've been wringing my hands over all the acrimony and finger-pointing I witness, day to day--it so clearly out of place. Let's not become today's scribes and Pharisees, so wrapped up in "mere human precepts" and in pre-, peri-, and post-Vatican II that we lose sight of the essence: Jesus and His Good News... Many thanks to John Allen for clarifying and defining many of the views I hear expressed--too many in anger.
Good. Very good.
Good. Very good.
As someone who studied under
As someone who studied under Douglas Bushman, I can say that it isn't the fault of Bushman or his colleagues that they left UD. It was the administration at the time that forced them out. They didn't have any kind of "taliban" tendencies at all and anyone who knows the professors of that program would tell you the same. An agenda was being pushed at UD for several years. When the administration finally turned over again, was when you saw a good balance come back to UD. It is a fine school and one I recommend highly. But, only after the administration that caused all the problems in the first place was changed.
Bushman helped me to "moderate" many of my own views that tended toward a "taliban" tendency. While I agree with the rest of this column and the point you are trying to make, throwing Bushman under the bus isn't necessary.
I agree with Marcel that
I agree with Marcel that Douglas Bushman -- along with Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and other IRPS faculty -- is and was no "Taliban Catholic." Unfortunately, these fine Catholic teachers were made to seem so by Msgr. Milam Joseph, who managed to finagle (entirely undeserved) a spot as University President. Joseph did everything he could to erode the Catholic identity of the University of Dallas, as well as its fine liberal arts curriculum, and it was he who created the war against IRPS. Msgr. Joseph was the one who used terrorist tactics, oppression, and coercion to expel orthodox Catholic faculty from the University of Dallas. For two years I worked alongside the IRPS faculty (as graphic designer on the Millennium Evangelization Project, headed by Dr. Janet Smith), and I got to know these men. While the "war" with Joseph (and the subsequent departures of faculty members) was distressing, I know that this was not what Bushman & co. wanted -- they wanted to teach the Catholic faith, nothing more.
"'There are no suicide
"'There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church,'she said". Well that's just how I do feel. I am leaving because I am tired of having the church and the people who think the church has every answer to every shade-of-gray question throw their barbs if not bombs at me. I question things. I always have. I question and if there is not a good answer then I think for myself. Questions such as: If Mary was spared original sin so she was perfect then did she freely accept the pregnancy of Jesus or was she unable to say no? If Mary could be spared from original sin then God could spare all of us from it so why doesn't he? If God can only be born from a perfect woman, then how can God be in all of us who sin?.... And I wouldn't doubt that a bomb (I mean barb) is coming in at me right now with someone saying if I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception then I am not Catholic. You see, the bombs do fly as many of you have experienced this same thing. Methinks the ones throwing the bombs are hiding behind righteousness' shield rather than Jesus' shield of compassion.
You have good questions, and
You have good questions, and they deserve good answers. BUT ... the problem with "thinking for yourself" is that it's an invitation to think, "I'm much more clever than they are." More than that, it's an invitation to tailor the Gospel message to suit one's ego. That was Martin Luther and John Calvin's downfall, as well as that of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
Often enough, what blocks understanding is not an answer that doesn't make sense, but an answer that doesn't fit our preconceptions of How Things Ought to Be. One day, you don't understand -- then one day you release your intellectual pride, and then you do understand. Some things, though, are true whether you understand them or not, whether you accept them or not. Sometimes, like St. Anselm, you have to believe first in order to understand later.
I can sympathize to an extent with your feelings of hurt. Correction should always be given in the spirit of charity, never with a "God, how dumb you are!" inflection. But it's one thing to question a dogma in the search for a satisfying answer, and a different thing altogether to reject a dogma because it doesn't suit you. In this sense, your critics are right: Once you start rejecting Catholic dogmas, you essentially become a Protestant ... you elect to become an outsider. To pretend otherwise does nobody any good.
I pray that you give your decision to leave plenty of second thoughts and prayers. May the Grace of God be with you.
Earthen Vessel: It isn't a
Earthen Vessel:
It isn't a barb/bomb to say you aren't catholic for not believing in the Immaculate Conception. It's an observation.
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."
Pius IX
You're tired of the people thinking the church has every answer to every shade of gray question....well, sounds a bit dramatic. I doubt those exist. It sounds, perhaps, that the real problem here is that you want to decide for yourself whatever you want to believe since you "question things". All the questions you've asked have been answered all over the internet. If you looked for the answer you would find it. (I bet catholic answers probably has every single one of those questions asked by a reader). But I'm willing to bet, based on the language you used, that you're more inclined to go your own way rather than trust an institution that teaches with the authority of Christ and has been around for nearly 2000 years. I doubt your insights to these theological questions are breaking new ground, and don't be blinded by vanity or pride by thinking that you are, or that you're the first one to ask these questions.
So all the questions have
So all the questions have been answered on the internet -- except the question whether this whole type of discourse is not royally out of date. And even if the answers were 100% adequate, the smugness with which they are delivered is enough to send people racing for the nearest exit.
I would like to gently
I would like to gently suggest that this is a particularly ironic accusation, Rev. O'Leary. In my experience of your writing, you range the internet with unshakable certitude as to the rightness of your own positions, deliver them with magisterial smugness and are far too quick to affix labels to your opponents.
Not always, to be sure--you have, on occasion, tried to understand the other side with honest questions. But the other tendency shows up far too often, begging a "physician, heal thyself" response.
Pius IX, He thought he was
Pius IX, He thought he was God. Read Papal Sins. Maybe not God, but pretty close. Or "more Catholic than the Church"
Regarding 'Taliban
Regarding 'Taliban Catholicism': perhaps a better descriptor is 'pure church catholic' or PCC. These are our brothers and sisters who wish everyone else to be just like they are, including bishops, and judge accordingly.
Pope Benedict XV disagrees,
Pope Benedict XV disagrees, John:
23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
1 November 1914
Benedict XV was for us in
Benedict XV was for us in Brazil 'the pope of missions'. In "MAXIMUM ILLUD"(30 November 1919) he urged missionary bishops to encourage and support actively the formation of native clergy, and to seek the welfare of the people "among whom they worked, not the imperialist interest of their own country of origin". Two years before his unexpected death at the age of 67 (22 January 1922) a statue of him was erected in Istanbul(NW Turkey). The Turks saluted him as "the great pope of the world tragedy; the benefactor of all people, irrespective of nationality or religion."
While believing the many good
While believing the many good things said about the Univesity of Dallas, and understanding the concerns of the California group there, I'd propose that there are at least a couple of Catholic, with a capital "C", schools in the Golden State.
They would be Thomas Aquinas and John Paul the Great.
I tend to agree with you
I tend to agree with you about those two schools in terms of thier Catholic identity are similar to that of UD's. But when we take into account academics, size, and student life there is certainly a difference between these three schools. Speaking as a student who left California to attend UD. That is really what many of these Catholic Californians are looking for. A school with a lively Student body, graduate school accalades, and large enough to still have the college feel to it.
I'm sorry John. I should
I'm sorry John. I should spend more time praising your thoughtful article and the insights you provide. There is much to think about.
But... I'm too frustrated by one thing that might be considered nit-picking. Labeling Catholics. All these Labels are from secular thinking not Catholic thinking and they are part of the problem. We are using a vaguely protestant idea of Evangelical, and political labels of Liberal and Conservative none of which effectively describe what people rally think. That's bad enough but now you have to go and add a brand new one - Taliban Catholic - I'm sorry but those two words don't even belong together! What the hell is a Taliban Catholic!
Just stop abusing labels. Yes I know it is hard to find a way to communicate the ideas and factions within the Church and at times a handy short had seems to be required, but we can't let these labels become a substitute for our identity or the identity of those who disagree with us in some areas.
Dear GNW_Paul How right you
Dear GNW_Paul
How right you are. The labels do more damage than the 'thinking aloud' which is, because of the excellent means of modern communications we enjoy in the Western world, what most of the stuff that sends people scurrying for a label, is.
Professor Diarmiud McCulloch, Oxford University (England) Professor of Church History, an Anglican, in his latest book, History fo the Christian Church, levels a severe judgement against us Catholics when he says, of the last forty years of the Catholic Church's life, that it has been nothing but a an introverted culture war.
The labels are the product of inaction in keeping to the Mission of Jesus.
Catholicism Lite and Taliban Catholics are both, speculative and misleading and the main proponents of them should be ashamed of themselves for distracting Catholics from the Mission that really counts.
Well, GNW, you beat me to the
Well, GNW, you beat me to the punch. I was going to suggest to John that he simply stop using such labels if they cause the reactions he describes. But your comments, GNW, express far more eloquently what I would try and say. Your frustration is not "nit-picking." The words we use to describe, or label as you aptly call it, our thoughts and feelings are vitally important, and to be used wisely. If one doesn't firmly believe that ALL position have pieces of truth in them, then you cannot engage in a conversation: you only lecture and admonish and belittle. We have several well-known commentators on these NCR sites that show it every day: they cannot see and accept that anyone other than themselves know any of the truth of Catholicism, and they employ the use of labels as a way of "bombing" the hated others. I hope, as a result of this article and commentas such as your, they find a way - we all find a way - to speak in a way that more closely resembles the better ones among us, such as yourself, GNW.
One of the reason why I like
One of the reason why I like reading John Allen is because I find him so balanced. I am a faithfilled traditional Catholic who is tired of the culture wars within my church. Can we not listen to each other with respect and allow a diversity of callings. I am so tired of my parish priests being attacked so vindictively and personally, first because he was too conservative for some, the next was too liberal for others, every time there is a change more people get up and leave. Are we so certain we know the mind of God that we can condemn people so easily. Let us pray for larger ears and smaller mouths, open hearts as opposed to closed fists.
Truth and comfort! What I
Truth and comfort! What I have experienced acutely and uncomfortably especially the last decade put into words. In that mixed bag of preVatican II days one thing helpful and lasting I was taught was moderation - neither be first or last. Today I'm so mixed up I don't even know if I should call myself a Catholic though I support my local parish financially and attend Sunday Mass faithfully but I consider those envelopes with "My Just Contribution" against my "religion" and will not use them. Since Vatican II I have felt I was on a roller coaster ride and jerked around at times. I long for "Truth" and want to believe, but can't seem to understand belief without knowing. I have seen myself reflected by others as prophet and heretic, cafeteria catholic and pagan. Inside there is a child who just want to know what the right thing is and get it right. I seem to mostly not be able to know definitely what the right thing is. My prayer is reduced to groans on many occasions and when I find words I can only pray that if God exists and I was made with a purpose that he/she makes it work as I haven't a clue beyond loving the persons in my life as best I can. Thank you John Allen for this report.
I think John is correct in
I think John is correct in assessing the landscape's extremes, and its blends of middle-dom, but I think the use of "Taliban" bears too much of the same baggage that the over-use of "Nazi" does -- it refers to a real ideology with a real political instantiation that has inflicted real injustices on real people. Using other terms like Fundamentalist-Catholicism, or militant-Catholicism might bear less noxious freight. Just a thought.
I appreciate what you're
I appreciate what you're trying to do by balancing "Catholicism Lite" with "Taliban Catholicism," and I recognize the reality of both as problematic phenomena. I suspect your proposed taxonomy is too unbalanced, though. I think most people would the pejorative force of "Taliban Catholicism" far outweighs that of "Catholicism Lite." Invoking the Taliban is like dropping the bomb, rhetorically speaking.
I don't have an ideal alternative to suggest, though. "Pharisee Catholicism," maybe? It would be more intelligible on a number of levels, both rhetorically and historically, given the traditional connotations of "Pharisees" in Christian thought and in the NT. It gets at the idea of rigorous legalism and rigid party lines without suggesting oppression or terrorism. Down side: Some may consider it to have an antisemitic ring, and less than just to the historical Pharisees.
Or what about "Pit Bull Catholicism"? (Sorry, pit bull lovers.)
Orthodoxy in itself is open.
Orthodoxy in itself is open. But "openness" does not necessarily equate with Orthodoxy. Othodoxy cannot be compromised in the teaching arena. This is what the young generation are reflecting in their comments. For too long the young have had to listen to half-truths, pop-pyschology and heretical statements at our so-called "Catholic" universities. The "blessing" of the teachers leaving as the bishop calls it, was a grave scandal and injustice. The lack of Orthodoxy in our Catholic universities is a wound to the Church in America. This wound to the People of God will never be healed until those in leadership positions accept the oath of fidelity to teach in union with the Magisterium in their teaching roles. This also applies to the bishops! If you are a Catholic bishop - then uphold the faith! If you are a Catholic teaching, then teach the faith. If you are in doubt, share that you are in doubt but don't corrupt the teaching pulpit you have been given by sharing half-truths as truth, or speculations as doctrine.
Thank you. I have to second
Thank you. I have to second your comment 100%. My cohorts and I focus on abortion, homosexuality, contraception and male clergy as hard lines because we have learned not to trust anything from those who are muddled or dissenting on these issues. For too long in CCD and in Catholic newspapers and magazines and in the pews at my college campus ministry I was fed the lies encouraging me to believe that the Church should and ultimately would become a democracy and that we all have the right of conscience to negate Church teaching on contraception.
Frankly, if anyone distorts or denies the Churches teaching in these areas - I can't trust them as a source of anything useful.
Interesting post
Interesting post GNW_Paul.
You have certainly been told lies as regards the Church becoming a democracy.
That is never going to happen, in 'big' issues.
However, it is absolutely orthodox Catholic moral theology that -;
1 - You are entitled to freedom of conscience.
2 - You must follow your conscience.
3 - You must follow your conscience, even if it leads you to a position where you need to leave the Catholic Church.
Also in moral theology there is what is called 'Reception', which basically means that if a particular doctrine is not 'received' (accepted) by a majority of Christ's Lay Faithful, then there is considerable doubt, and when there is considerable doubt, you are not obliged to follow that doctrine.
Humanae Vitae is a case in point. The Bishops of the world were split, that alone consitutes enough doubt as to our obligation to give it our spiritual assent. The Committee hand chosen by Paul VI strongly opposed the publication of Humanae Vitae. Human Vitae is not an Infallible Statement, therefore if faithful Catholics (faithful to Christ and the Church) cannot, after much prayer and relection, give their spiritual assent, they are free, and indeed have a right to do so.
Finally, no doctrine in the recent history of the Church has not been 'received' by a vast majority of Catholics as Humane Vitae. It has caused literally millions of Catholics, unaware of orthodox moral theology, to leave the Catholic Church! Would you consider that the work of the Holy Spirit or the Devil?
Humanae Vitae actually was more about the Roman Curia pressurising Paul VI in regard of doctrine of papal infallibility enunciated in 1870 i.e. power.
Being obssesed with power - Holy Spirit or the Devil?
Could you please elaborate
Could you please elaborate more on reception? Is there anything in the catechism about it, or could you direct me to something from the Church Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, or another authoritative theologian about the topic? How does this relate to Papal Infallibility?
Also, when you reference "conscience," are you referring to anyone's conscience, or to "well-formed conscience," the context in which I have previously heard conscience spoken of? And how was the curia involved in Paul VI's decision?
Todd, 'Reception' is
Todd, 'Reception' is basically what is termed the 'sensus fidelium', or the sense of the faithful.
It really scares me that you
It really scares me that you are a priest leading others in their faith and preparing men and women for marriage. You seem to have a skewed, secular view of what conscious is. We should not follow the view that conscious in itself is paramount and atonomous but rather that we have a conscious that follows in the tradition of participated theonomy. You should read John Paul's II encyclical Veritatis Splendor and the teaching of the Magisterium of what conscious is.
I do not normally reply to
I do not normally reply to 'anonymous' posts. With respect, you cannot even spell conscience. It is also somewhat arrogant, if I may say so, to indicate that I should read Veritatis Splendor. Not only have I read it, I have studied it.
I repeat, what I wrote about conscience is absolutely orthodox Catholic moral theology. I suggest you read the documents of Vatican II, and none other than the writings of the current Pope throughout his academic career would uphold what I have written.
A well-informed conscience, and the duty of all Catholics is to take into consideration non-infallible teachings; read what is in the Catechism and take that into consideration when making moral decisions. As to taking a secular view, I strongly resent that remark. I uphold the teachings of Vatican II. Just in case you are unaware, the documents of an Ecumenical Council are of a much higher authority than any Papal Encyclical.
Finally, like all 'anonymous' posts, may I suggest you get your facts correct and have the courage of your ill-informed information.
My goodness you scare me,
My goodness you scare me, father. Catholic morals suggest leaving the Church...that's a bit of a stretch, if not just plain stupidity. Also, you call others arrogant while being arrogant yourself. You deplore others for suggesting you read something you clearly don't seem to understand, whether or not you've actually read it, and then you have the audacity to indict them simply because they didn't leave A name which may or may not even be their name. Whether or not you're actually a priest seems to be coming into my mind right now. I'll pray for your soul, as it is misguided, whoever you are.
Your description of "country
Your description of "country club Republican Catholicism" is a dead ringer for your colleague George Weigel.
Taliban Catholicism is
Taliban Catholicism is exactly what has happened to the Church since John Paul II and Benedict have controlled the dialogue. The exercise of authority in the Church has been badly abused for the last thirty years and no amount of apologetics by John Allen is going to change this fact. There has not been a balanced or civil discussion since reactionary thinking became the source of authority within the Church.
The source of authority in
The source of authority in the Church (which seems to be the only issue that many are interested in: power) is Jesus Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today and forever. His teaching does not change, no matter how much we may want it to. That is not being a "Taliban Catholic", it is simply being a Catholic.
IN many cases we are talking
IN many cases we are talking about sociology more than theology in these little tiffs. It affects the notion of belonging (do you need to keep others out in order to feel that you belong), self image (what does it mean for me to believe and stake my life on a risen Lord, comfort/discomfort with ambiguity (is faith a leap filled with uncertainty placing oneself in God's hands - or is it a way to feel secure).
I don't like to argue semantics - but I find myself and others very evangelically minded as well as in practice but I would not put myself in the straight-jacket that John describes. Proclaiming the gospel does not have be done with anathema. Some folks on the left use anathemas also but apply it to the death penalty, immigration (Hebrew Scriptures - care for the Orphan, Widow and Resident Alien), poverty and greed. They oppose abortion but are not sure when life begins since that is a philosophical rather than a theological question.
Few of us have the balance of the great late Cardinal of Chicago with his seamless garment.
Getting along has been difficult since the time of Paul and Peter. I agree with Charlie Brown - "I love humanity, it is people I can't stand."
Always provocative,
Always provocative, well-researched and defined. Thank you for stretching the boundaries of our thinking.
The term "Taliban
The term "Taliban Catholicism" rings true to me. There may not be suicide bombings, but there have been excommunications that can feel like random attacks (e.g. members of certain groups with one bishop are excommunicated while others are not). And I agree with the author that both Taliban Catholicism and Catholicism Lite can be found across the spectrum. The quote from Farrell's commencement address gives me hope.
Anonymous: "...there have
Anonymous: "...there have been excommunications that can feel like random attacks". Really? Who has Pope Benedict XVI excommunicated since he was elected Supreme Pontiff five years ago?
The only high level excommunication I can recall right now was Bishop Bruskewitz informing everyone in his diocese of Lincoln that membership in Call to Action "is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith" and would result in automatic excommunication (excommunication, not imposed by a bishop or the Holy Father, but a natural consequence of the act itself, in this case, membership in Call to Action). As diocesan ordinary, Bishop Bruskewitz had to inform his people of this reality.
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, said in 2006, "The judgment of the Holy See is that the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint...Thus to be a member of this association or to support it is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith".
I would also remind those who would defend Call to Action and criticize the bishop for being a "Taliban Catholic" on the right, that he also said that membership in all these groups would result in automatic excommunication: Planned Parenthood, Society of St. Pius X, Hemlock Society, St. Michael the Archangel Chapel, Freemasons, Job's Daughters, DeMolay, Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls and Catholics for a Free Choice. This is a collection of left-wing and right-wing radical groups, all of which are inconsistent with authentic Catholic teaching.
Finally, excommunication is a medicinal penalty designed to remind the person or people in question that they have strayed outside the faith, and that they need to reform and return. As Bishop Bruskewitz said, "My prayer will always be that when people understand they have taken a wrong turn, they will stop and take the right turn".
Bruskewitz has no
Bruskewitz has no credibility.
Call to Action does.
MAy wedare recall here the
MAy wedare recall here the curious case of the Rwverend Father Tissa Balasuriya?
The term "Taliban
The term "Taliban Catholicism" rings true to me. There may not be suicide bombings, but there have been excommunications that can feel like random attacks (e.g. members of certain groups with one bishop are excommunicated while others are not). And I agree with the author that both Taliban Catholicism and Catholicism Lite can be found across the spectrum. The quote from Farrell's commencement address gives me hope.
I know it feels pithy and
I know it feels pithy and cute to say "Taliban" as an adjective to describe a certain segment of the Church, but my friends and colleagues have been killed, wounded and maimed by members of the Taliban and I do not think it is helpful, even if it is meant to apply to both sides of the ideological divide. That is the worst sort of blog-style vocabulary choice. You can do better than that.
Hmmm, If the pope is not
Hmmm, If the pope is not rolling back Vatican II, then just how does one account for and explain the stepped up nastiness. The investigation of the nuns. And my favorite, the constant and steady stream of invective against gay and lesbian persons. This is a man who is the author and wordsmith of all the nasty talk about gays, everything from intrinsic evil to objective disorder. He is the man who went to Africa and suggested that -- contrary to any evidence that I am aware of -- condom use increases sexuality activity and therefore their use spreads AIDS, So bad was that comment that two European governments have registered complaints-- and well they should. More recently, the Pope has said that gays are a threat to creation. And even before arriving in the UK, he has taken a jab at the move to extend religious marriage in the UK. This man cannot help but attack, attack and attack , further emboldening the US bishops in their full scale assault on same-sex marriage. They're just a bunch of men who can't say no to gay bashing. I'd like to suggest that this Pope would not only like to roll back Vatican II, but also the Enlightenment, taking the church back to the world view of rigid natural law with Aristotle thrown in to boot. And that would entail ignoring even further the real live experience of gay people, many of whom are now legally married and doing just fine as parents. just because Rome says something does not make it so. B-16 owes it to those he bashes to experience them up close and personal Bring on Jesus 101 indeed. The reality of gay life should give the pontiff cause to pause. If he dares gets out of his palace to be with us.
Unless, of course, the gay
Unless, of course, the gay person is a priest or bishop or seminarian.
Anonymous, Please explain how
Anonymous,
Please explain how investigating the actions of religous sisters is turning back a clock?
I don't think I have ever read about BXVI speaking nastily about gays and lesbians as people. Yes, he considers homosexual acts as intrinsically evil and gavely disordered, and people who commit them are considered to be committing evil and behaving in a gravely disorder manner, but I don't think he has called them names.
He DID go to Africa and say that more condoms are not the answer to the AIDS problem. Research in Uganda's use of abstinence education shows that the rate of infection is lower in countries that don't hand out condoms - even though the US refuses aid to countries that use abstinence only education.
I haven't studied your remaining points enough to comment.
I do feel comfortable saying that Vatican II did not support or endorse condoms for AIDS, gay marriage, nuns acting as abortion escorts, or many of the other things carried out under the guise of the "Spirit of Vatican II."
BXVI is less about turning back the clock as he is about actually carrying out the intentions of the Council.
"...nuns acting as abortion
"...nuns acting as abortion escorts..."
I am aware of one case in which this has happened. It was indeed a scandal, and her reasoning was very weak.
However, you paint with a broad, and, I think, an unfair brush, when you say "nuns" (plural).
Do you know of many like cases? If so please cite them. Do you know of any other case besides the one in the Midwest? (I think it was a member of the Dominicans.) If so please cite it.
If you are correct I would like to know; if you are incorrect and exaggerating to make your point I would like to know.
Please report B16 accurately.
Please report B16 accurately. The orientation itself is disordered, whether or not gay acts are committed.
Also, what is your evidence that abstinence only works better than ABC in Africa? Uganda is well-known for the success of the ABC program, contrary to what you seem to suggest.
Uhm. . . no offense, but I
Uhm. . . no offense, but I think you're falling more into the "taliban" (even though I hate such labelling) mindset. I'm homosexual. I love our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. And last time I checked, he seems to love me too. All the "gay bashing" you referenced is either taken wildly out of context, or is simply not true. One can have differing opinions on gay marriage or the innate morality of homosexual acts without being a "gay basher."
An excellent overview of the
An excellent overview of the conflict, sometimes vitriolic, that Catholicism is undergoing in this country. Fortunately, the mass of Catholics can be found in between the Lite and the Taliban.
No theologian, or professor
No theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," Farrell said.
succinct..... lite or taliban ?
Yes, what a ridiculous
Yes, what a ridiculous statement for a Bishop to make. To be "fully Catholic" is to be in unity with the Church: one is either "fully Catholic" or NOT Catholic. There is no unity in division over truth--that is not even logical. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has consistently defined what it means to be part of the Church, and it has consistently excluded anyone "who shall recede in the least degree" from Her teachings, which are given Her by the Holy Trinity Itself. Or, as Leo XIII succinctly put it in Satis Cognitum:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from ANY point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” (my emphasis)
Is that ambiguous?
One cannot claim to be part of the Church, that is, holding the same faith of Her, when one obstinately rejects a dogmatic teaching. Period. Jesus commands us to make our yes "yes" and our no "no," and likewise warns us that if we are lukewarm, He will "spit us out". How much more direct does He have to be?
What it comes down to is the fact that some "Catholics" think the Faith is just another one of hundreds of man-made religions...a false religion. They think it is a "way of life" or something they "grew up in," and it might be true, it might not be true, and that it wouldn't matter either way. It is not another man-made religion devised to give you a "way of life": the Catholic Faith is the only true religion, the only religion pleasing to the Holy Trinity, and the only religion on the planet that was given to us humans directly from God. What it comes down to is the simple fact that people do not believe the Word of God, and they do not believe Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, what a similarly ridiculous statement to call someone---anyone---a "Taliban Catholic." What thoughtless hyperbole. You mustn't know anything about the Taliban: is there a conservative Catholic community somewhere that prohibits the flying of kites, allows for multiple marriages, condones the rape of children, burns women on pyres, attacks with suicide vests, prohibits the consumption of pork, prays to Allah, rejects the Holy Trinity, and reads the Koran as the word of God"? You need to work on either your logical comparisons or your knowledge of the Taliban. And you see, that itemized list above are the effects having not a God-given religion, but a man-made one (Islam). "Catholics" who depart from the true Faith suffer the same horrible effect: they will accept abortion, contraception, gay marriage, and any number of other outrages against God. They will invent their own religions as well.
Being Catholic is really not as complicated as this article makes it seem. The hurdle we humans have is overcoming our own self-love, ego, pride, and the unwarranted and unevidenced (yet endlessly socially reinforced) idea that "your opinion matters." Reality check: when it comes to God, your opinion doesn't matter. Facts matter, and the Catholic Faith is the only faith with the facts---direct from God. You either take it or leave it. Your time on this planet is very short, and God is not mocked.
To know who is Catholic,
To know who is Catholic, surely, integrally, truly and authentically, we only need read once more, and several times more, the faithful 1971 Dimensions Book by NCR and Notre Dame's own and very Reverend, the learned Father Richard P. McBrien entitled, oddly enough, "Who Is A Catholic?"
You seem to treat these as
You seem to treat these as the Gospel.
Here's the rest of the
Here's the rest of the story... I was in the last graduating class of the IRPS program at UD under Douglas Bushman STL. I was there right in the midst of this scandal. I am still personal friends with many of my professors who moved in mass from UD to Ave Maria U. to stand-up the IPT program there. God did bring good out of the evil. But evil is still evil. The stories I could tell you... The careers ruined, the families hurt, the students in the middle of their studies put in a real predicament, etc. I have no love for Mnsgr. Joseph nor Bishop Charles Grahmann. My diploma signed by both of them (if my memory serves me correctly) has the value of toilet paper for me. The pin that Douglas gave us all graduating is what I still wear with pride. I thank God for the friendship and witness in my life of Douglas, Tim, David, Marcellino, & Fr. Mitch. My God bless them with many more years of teaching at AMU and Fr. Mitch's ministry at EWTN.
Excellent article. I found
Excellent article. I found particularly interesting how "Catholic Lite" and "Taliban" don't describe Progressive vs. Traditional Catholics, but mindsets common to both sides (if you are willing to allow the simplification of the Church as an entity with Right and Left "wings").
No matter how you qualify the
No matter how you qualify the "Taliban" aspect of Catholism, I find the reference totally inappriate and offensive. I am sure you could have choosen another less political term. When I hear Taliban I see bombs exploding and bodies torn apart. This term choosen by someone like you...who has the gift of using words... is totally inexcusable. Shame on you!
Mr. Allen, there are two
Mr. Allen, there are two items in your column that I take exception to. Firstly, with the removal of the IRPS to Ave Maria under the extreme pressure of the last bishop I believe you have your facts wrong. The IRPS was staffed by a faculty of scholars with excellent academic credentials. What made them different from other theology faculties is that they thoroughly believed in what the Church teaches. The faculty certainly were not Taliban. In my estimation Grahmann was wrong. He pushed the Institute out of Dallas and the diocese lost a vehicle that furnished parishes with highly educated teachers. That was the reason the Institute was founded.
As for a "little" Catholic Lite and Taliban in all of us; no. Either one believes all that our Church teaches or you do not.
I guessed I missed something; what is an evangelical Catholic? Is it someone who goes out and preaches the Word of God? That is what all Catholics are supposed to do. Please keep in mind that the students are young and are testing their wings. That is what 20 year-olds do!!
Mr. Allen, I'm so glad you
Mr. Allen, I'm so glad you appended the section on synthesis. Lately it has bothered me to read of only two sides of issues. This effectively forces readers to one side or its the other. But when you say, "To be honest there's probably a little Catholic Lite and a little Taliban in all of us" you allow for finding what's common among our differences (think Cardinal Bernadin's Common Ground approach). This is truly "to be honest", "charity in truth" and an integral example of "both/and" we Catholics live by - or so we say! I thank you for inviting the Dallas audience to find issues that unite rather than divide. May this approach continue.
Thank you for this. As a UD
Thank you for this.
As a UD alum (and an Orthodox priest) I am grateful for my time, the education I received and the friends I made.
The tension you describe between "evangelical" and "moderate" Catholics was much in evidence when I was there as an undergraduate and graduate student in the late 70's and early 80's. While your discussion there was more formal, it is part of a conversation that has been going on for at least the last 30+ years.
Though conversation is an old one, its context has changed with the University's growing emphasis on professional in addition to liberal arts education. This I suspect plays at least some part in the tension between the two groups.
I must confess I am of two minds about the larger role being given to professional education at UD. On the one hand, I think there is much to be said for providing a sound liberal arts education for the next generation of professionals. On the other hand, there is something comforting in the almost monastic orientation of UD's core requirements.
Tempting as it for UD to remain the same, I nevertheless think that recent changes are for the best. Even as an undergraduate--and one who would have happily identified himself as an evangelical Catholic--I was concerned that at times we were too closed in on ourselves, too unaware that what we understood as the Catholic tradition was only one part of a much larger, and richer, tradition. The current debate and the more practical orientation of the education the University offers are part of embracing more, not less, of the Catholic tradition.
I am reminded, and I end with this, of St Gregory of Nyssa's observation that it is only by changing that we can become like the God Who does not change. Perfection for humanity, he concludes, comes by changing and changing frequently.
Thanks again for your post.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
UD, BA 82/MA86
John: You decribed me
John:
You decribed me perfectly...It jumped right out at me as I read it. "The
Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the Church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend
traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice--- a liberal "hermeneutic of suspicion" that can easily shade off into rage." WOW! I can't believe it! I never saw myself as a "Taliban Catholic" but thank God I can be honest with
myself to recognize what may be so obvious to others. This is a wonderful article from beginning to end... I hope my "rage" is somewhat controlled when I "shade off" Dot
Balance? What balance? Take
Balance? What balance? Take a look at the panel on which John served which lead to this post.
http://www.udallas.edu/academics/ministry/somevents/sompanels
It consisted of three "moderates" (read: liberals) and one conservative. That is the School of Ministry's attempt at balance.
Who do you think is "liberal"
Who do you think is "liberal" and who conservative and based on what?
When I read a piece like this
When I read a piece like this by John Allen (and there's been a lot recently) where he pays homage to the Catholic right and praises such flame throwers as his good friend George Weigel I wonder if I really know John Allen at all. Weigel has slandered many Catholics, especially people like the late Farther Drinan
Another defender of Weigel is the now notorious Republican wheeler-dealer Deal Hudson. Weigel and Hudson would close down NCR tomorrow if they could.
"...slandered many Catholics,
"...slandered many Catholics, especially people like the later Farther(sic) Drinan..." The late Father Drinan was so far beyond the pale and so much ahead of a generation of priests who were convinced that it was they whom we come to worship that I can't begin to imagine what a vile thing anyone could have said that could be accurately characterized as slander.
I can't speak for Messrs Hudson and Weigel but - if it meant no more Drinans defending infanticide and Allens slandering Popes - then I would certainly shut down NCR tomorrow, were it in my power.
"I would certainly shut down
"I would certainly shut down NCR tomorrow, were it in my power."
And God bless you, too, Mr. McFarland.
"Weigel and Hudson would
"Weigel and Hudson would close down NCR tomorrow if they could."
Oh please. I could name several dozen people who would close down NCR tomorrow if they could.
I read Bishop Farrell's
I read Bishop Farrell's speech. Wow. Not exactly inspiring. He really made no point outside of "you conservatives be nice to your weak-minded colleagues. And don't be mean, I have to work with these people."
I found the bishop's speech
I found the bishop's speech very inspiring.
Post new comment