The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionNew from Netflix: Inquisition II at Fordham
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Jun. 10, 2011
The currently ill-timed, ill-stated, and certainly ill-advised critique of Fordham theologian Elizabeth Johnson's book, Quest for the Living God, is a remake of a slasher movie that Catholics have seen many times. You know the one in which the monster, thought slain in the original film, rises and returns to his pursuit of the innocent. Note that "Inquisition II" contains violence and may not be suitable for younger viewers.
In slasher films the victim is always an innocent woman who is unaware that someone awash with unnamable urgings is watching her, stalking her and staking out her routine to learn when she is most vulnerable. Then in the dark, always in the dark, he strikes her and escapes back into his surface respectability.
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, however, is too healthy a person and too accomplished a scholar to be taken, much less done in by the attack made on her literally and metaphorically in the dark by the U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine through its deputy, Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy.
Johnson has written a restrained and scholarly response to the slasher-like assault on her work, revealing that she is healthier than either the attack or the attackers, smarter, too, that's what really kills them about her.
This new version is loosely based on "Inquisition I" that depicted the unhealthy activities that abounded in the Plague Years of the Inquisition, the same ones recently identified by Jason Berry as "structural mendacity" and by Hans Kung as "sickness" in the Church.
"Inquisition II" may lack the medieval production values of "Inquisition I" but it retains its pathologically demeaning dynamics. These betray the bishops who want to do the right thing if they can see it, the people who are the Church who know the wrong thing when they see it, and the calling of theologians. The bishops have been led to confuse theology with doctrine and so are made to seem uninformed about theology's task of seeking to understand ever more deeply and in ever more accurate language the teachings of the Church.
Johnson calmly and undefensively writes that, "Ideas are taken out of context and twisted to mean what they patently do not mean. Sentences are run to a conclusion far from what I think or the text says …. Quest for A Living God was thoroughly misunderstood and consistently misrepresented …. The statement's judgment that Quest does not cohere with Catholic teaching is less than compelling. It hangs in the air, untethered by the text of the book itself."
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.
The embarrassing result was that Cardinal Donald Wuerl . chair of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine, stepped onto the swaying bridge of the accusations only to plunge his foot through its reed structure and into his own mouth at the same time. Apparently never having heard of Instant Replay, he claimed that the bishops are to be considered "umpires" in an analogy I'll bet he wouldn't choose again because it reduces theology to a spectator sport.
Wuerl thinks the solution is to return to the imprimatur, once sought from bishops before a theological work could be printed, which is like warring on vampires by opening a blood bank. Wuerl must have been getting his lines from the movie script when he stated that the supervision of the bishops is needed because we have "a generation or more of Catholics … who have little solid intellectual formation in their faith." One feels compassion for the cardinal as, in an effort to bolster the teaching authority of the bishops, he diminishes it and unintentionally embarrasses himself by insulting a theologically sophisticated generation of Catholics who know at least as much, and probably more theology than the bishops who may have signed off on this horror movie scenario not because they read it but because they thought it was the right thing, that is, their duty to do so..
They have been as ill-served by their supposedly official theologian as Johnson has been falsely accused by him. Here we clearly observe the twisted institutional dynamic that exercises power over by demeaning and humiliating others, by silencing them and sending them off as scapegoats for imagined sins. This is the dynamic we have seen in the treatment of other theologians or in simple corruptions of pastoral service when people are rudely treated when they are trying to arrange their marriage; it is, sadly and tragically, the institutional dynamic of the still unresolved world-wide sex abuse crisis.
Weinandy probably does not understand how he played a role in this horror remake. Otherwise he would not have allowed himself to be the agent of an in-the-dark-without-warning attack designed to humiliate and demean publicly a distinguished woman theologian. Nor would he give the impression of magisterial self-satisfaction in sponsoring the condemnation of Johnson's work and then stating that he never meant to question her "dedication, honor, creativity, or service."
Well, you can credit Weinandy with transparency. You can see right through his post-attack remarks to the heart of this darkness. "Inquisition II" is a sick movie, featuring the humiliation and demeaning of an innocent victim, followed by a hollow piety of denying that anybody intended to do anything hurtful.
My Aunt Margaret, displeased by the way women were portrayed on a daytime radio drama, wrote to the sponsors, asking, "Do you think we women are damned fools?" If she were still alive, she would ask the same question of Weinandy who wrote this screenplay and the bishops who played bit parts in this unfortunate film. Where was the Legion of Decency when the bishops needed it? We can hardly wait to hear the bishops discuss this at their forthcoming meeting in Seattle.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
|
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list. |
I would love to know the SAT
I would love to know the SAT scores of the each of the current crop of Bishops. I think it might speak volumes. Thirty years of Episcopal appointments based solely on orthodoxy, and little else, have yielded the rotten fruit of an American Episcopacy which is comprised of intellectual lightweights who are capable only of cracking down. Fanatical right wing cults like LC/RC, Opus Dei, and these rather theatrically dressed "Heralds of the Gospel" or whatever they call themselve, gain favor with the Vatican because they espouse a reactionary, medievalist faith which John Paul and now Benedict seemed to regard as the ideal. This is not the Church of my youth, nor even the Church of my grandfather's youth, but a Church of the 16th century, immediate post Trent. It's all very discouraging.
Evidently you don't know that
Evidently you don't know that Saint Peter was a fisherman, as was his brother, Saint Andrew. I imagine that their SAT scores would have been pretty low indeed. Thank God the Holy Spirit does not require the same type of "credentials" as you apparently do.
And, from my point of view, I am profoundly encouraged by the tough stance that our bishops are taking on the defending and promulgating the authentic teachings of the Church. There is a great deal to clean up post Vatican II. Thankfully, the bishops are making headway!
CWG - I could certainly join
CWG - I could certainly join you in being happy to see bishops "defending and promulgating the authentic teachings of the Church" But don't you think that it would be nice for them to, at least, UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY what a theologian is actually saying before they come out with guns blazing? I do.
Because those bishops have no
Because those bishops have no training in theology...right?
Wrong. Bishops are not
Wrong.
Bishops are not theologians in the strictest sense of the word.
CWG, you think they are
CWG, you think they are making headway, but they are not. The dam is about to break. Peter was a fisherman but no dummy. Academics do not have a monopoly on intellect, I have often found tradesmen who are quite keen. I stand by my statement regarding the Bishops and SAT scores. Look at the so called "Faithful Catholic Colleges" such as Steubenville. SAT scores at least 200 points below ND, BC, Georgetown, etc. When the sole criteria for selection to Bishop is blind obedience, you are not going to get good pastors, nor theologians who have supple, inquiring minds. Blind obedience and blind fanaticism. That's what we have had for 30 years, and it shows.
hear, hear!
hear, hear!
Yeah, I mean seriously, Peter
Yeah, I mean seriously, Peter was so smart he denies the Son of G*d three times! After being TOLD he would do so! Genius right there.
Peter and Andrew were
Peter and Andrew were fisherman with their own boat. They were businessmen. Probably very shrewd too. Let us not suggest that Andrew and Peter were intellectual light weights. They and the others started a revolution. Still I have to admit I wonder what Peter would say with all the fine clothes and ornaments their successors wear?
CWG - whatever their IQ
CWG - whatever their IQ scores may have been, I am sure it was quite enough for the people and the culture of that time. But for the 21st Century? I think not. You would have been more credible if you had stuck to your second paragraph and forgot the first.
My SAT scores weren't all
My SAT scores weren't all that high, but I am exactly the kind of reader who benefited from Elizabeth Johnson's book, "Quest for the Living God" , the book that Wuerl and associates have criticized. I believe that is exactly what they fear. That those of us who have average IQ's and SAT scores will be able to understand her well written explanations of contemporary theology. The bishops problem isn't about their SAT scores, but more about the topic which Dr. Paul Lakeland shared today at the meeting of theologians,(sorry, I can't remember the exact name of the organization). The theme was "humility" and I hope that Wuerl and his associates make a serious attempt to read the article that NCR has provided. It is well worth reading and certainly worth putting into action by us all, but in this case in particular by the clerical hierarchs....all the way to the top !!!
Interesting that you say SAT
Interesting that you say SAT rather than GRE, GMAT or LSAT. That says alot about you as well.
Incredibly clear article
Incredibly clear article depicting what has happened, Mr. Kennedy, thank you.
I agree with all that is
I agree with all that is written except the part about Thomas Weinandy. He had run ins with other Fordham theologians in the past and it is his signature mean-spirited, sarcastic remarks that makes Christian people cringe. His pen is filled with venom. If the bishops want to prove they are credible Christians, they have to show that by firing him.
They certainly will not know that we are followers of Christ by the demeaning language that Weinandy employs.
This article seems to imply
This article seems to imply that Weinandy is a bit contrite about the role he played in this. I started to imagine what might have precipitated his role in the "Disrespecting of Elizabeth Johnson;" which I think should be the subtitle of the movie "Inquisition II." Here is the result of my wool gathering.
A perhaps, not so fictional account of a phone call between Cardinal Wuerl and Fr. Thomas Weinandy....
"Hi, Father Weinandy? Cardinal Wuerl here. Yeah, well, we would like you to take a look at a book for us.... It's Elizabeth Johnson's Quest For the Living God.
Oh, you have already read it.
That's great... what? Well, I understand you love her work. Yes, well I guess she is a learned theologian. Yes, I see, I see... Yes, but we have a problem with her book.
Well, its like this. She proposes ideas that, while not wrong, certainly lead people to think they can start imagining things about God which are different from what we tell them. She also tells them about Catholic teaching, you know, things we wish they really didn't know.
Well, it is troublesome. Some of these things are things we really don't want them to be aware of. If they know them they might start thinking we are inconsistent.
What? No, but we lose control over them if they think. If they start thinking like this, they might get the idea that we actually put any stock in the old, 'Conscience is king,' teaching.
Yes, we actually do teach that, but, come on, do you actually think the people in the pew will come to the right conclusion? Heck, what if it is a conclusion that is different from the one we want them to have?
Look, I know maybe your heart won't be in this, but we need for you to give us some ammunition against this book.
What do you mean 'poor taste'?
Listen, you don't have to get upset... What? Just go through the book and identify areas that might seem questionable then, OKAY?
No, we don't actually intend to call her in to discuss them. Well, it isn't your place to decide what's fair and not fair, is it? Yeah, we know we are violating our own protocol doing it this way but if we call her in and she has a chance to explain, we won't be able to publish this and imply she is off base with her theology.
Well, she doesn't exactly get on the bandwagon with the idea of only publishing theology that supports church teaching'. We are trying to send a message here, okay?
You know, if I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. Don't make me have to put you under obedience...
What? I am asking for your opinion? Well, that is technically correct but not about the process. Just give me something I can use, will ya?
LMAO! This theological QUACK
LMAO!
This theological QUACK thinks he can rip Elizabeth Johnson's book apart after putting something like this out:
http://www.thomasweinandy.com/huckleberry.pdf
Craig: I like the part at the
Craig: I like the part at the begining when he says he is a
theologian by trade". I wonder which trade school he attended...
Fr. Weinandy's Curriculum
Fr. Weinandy's Curriculum Vitae, as displayed on his website, does not reveal a quack, but rather an impressively learned man whose studies and interests are both deep and diverse. However upon reading an article he provides, such as "Does God Suffer?" (http://thomasweinandy.com/articles.html) one can make afar more responsible assessment of his thinking. Fr Weinandy espouses the neo-Thomist position where God is totally other but also immanent, categories that were introduced to theology from dualist Helenistic philosophy. He decries any notion that God's being might be coincident with ours,thus ruling out the perception that God suffers with us. His logic is a perfect example of "begging the question", as with most neo-Thomists. They claim God is immutable because He is perfect, and perfection cannot change because if it did it wouldn't be perfect. They fall further down the slope when they postulate other aspects of divinity based on their iron clad conviction that God is not within "creation". Thus "God is perfectly compassionate not because he suffers with those who suffer, but because his love fully and freely embraces those who suffer." (from the cited article)
Elizabeth Johnson's writings stem from a different perception, one that attempts to transcend the dualistic pitfalls that have trapped old school theologians for centuries, and she is joined by a very impressive band of colleagues indeed.
Thank you for your reasoned
Thank you for your reasoned reply. Ypu put us all back on track. BiNJ.
In the old horror movies, the
In the old horror movies, the poor female heroine had to hope her hero would come rushing to the rescue. NOT SO TODAY! Women are quite capable of raising a good sized 2x4 and doing in the evil villain themselves. Maybe someone should warn these guys to DUCK.
Hey I've gotta idea I learned
Hey I've gotta idea I learned from the holy big boys. When one of these maligned women pick up the 2x4 I'll yell DUCK at the exact wrong time.
Then I can contritely say oops so sorry doctrine commitee man.
Thanks once again Dr. Kennedy
Thanks once again Dr. Kennedy for a wonderful article.
You would never be made a bishop...... much to your credit.
Thanks..... I read Johnson's book when it first came out and am still using her wonderful thoughts on the Trinity every Trinity Sunday in my homily.
Such a fuss about the NCCCB
Such a fuss about the NCCCB taking issue with Sr. Elizabeth Johnson's book. It's no more fair for NCR to just summarize the objections than it is for some spokesperson to just summarize the objections to it. Let me judge what they said -- just as I judge her book. Publish the letter.
If you were not so late to
If you were not so late to this controversy you would know that NCR made the bishops' letter available in full. Do your home work before speaking out of turn.
That was a rhetorical
That was a rhetorical statement I presume? Because NCR has published the bishop's letter and Johnson's response. I read them.
The Inquisitions of medieval
The Inquisitions of medieval times were truly horrifying featuring torture and the burning alive of human beings, and I am always thankful for the phiosophy of "secular humanism" that arose at the time of the Enlightenment and which finally put an end to the Church's ability to inflict such horrors upon the human family. The ordeal of Sister Elizabeth Johnson is not "Inquisition II" but more of a ham-handed spoof like "Monster Movie" wherein bumbling "Frankensteins" and such careen about causing laughs and not chills.
The American jurist, Robert
The American jurist, Robert Jackson, wrote once in a U. S. Supreme Court decision that, "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." This still hold water in the Church today, and if I may add, orthodoxy only breeds mediocrity.
Wow! What a fabulous quote!
Wow! What a fabulous quote! Many thanks, Miguel. That says it all.
Are you sure that you all
Are you sure that you all aren't blowing this whole affair a bit out of proportion? An "inquisition?" "An in-the-dark-without-warning attack designed to humiliate and demean publicly a distinguished woman theologian?" "The humiliation and demeaning of an innocent victim?" Really?!? Look, I'm not saying the doctrinal committee was completely right in its judgments, but this kind of language seems disporportional to the event. Elizabeth Johnson is a grown woman and a professional theologian; she can defend herself (and has!). When Johnson chose to enter the field of Catholic theology, she had to have realized that this kind of criticism of her work was going to be part and parcel of the vocation. At academic conferences, I've seen much more scathing critiques than what the committee on doctrine leveled. On this side of the eschaton, theologians cannot always reach an agreement on disputed points. In other words, disagreement comes with the territory. In fact, that's how the theological conversation progresses. If an individual is going to throw a hissy fit every time one of their cherished ideas is criticized (and, here, I'm not talking about Johson, but about some of her defenders), he or she should probably should avoid theological conversations altogether.
Again, I'm not arguing that the USCCB's statement is without weaknesses. I just think we have to respond to these kinds of criticisms like adults. The committee on doctrine has stated its case, and Johnson has responded in kind. I fail to see what's so inquisitorial about that.
Outstanding, RJM. Your
Outstanding, RJM. Your points apply to every professional field in how the body of knowledge is developed, refined and then accepted. And yes, certainly, adults must accept critical review of their work. You are most correct in what you state. And I would hasten to add one other point. That is that those who critique another's work, must make sure that their own points are well founded, and not retreat into "because I say it's so.." as the bishop's committee did in this case. Again, I agree this has all turned into a bit more of a mountain than may be warranted, but that can be said of both sides, right? Except for Sister Johnson - she's shown everyone how to handle such situations.
God bless your Aunt Margaret!
God bless your Aunt Margaret! And you, Eugene Kennedy! I find it so entertaining and instructive to enter into your metaphors. Thank you.
It is time to - ever so
It is time to - ever so benignly and lovingly - 'excommunicate' ourselves from these lost heirchical patriarchs in favor of a New (American?) Catholic Community. Allowing women and married priest would go a long way to begin resolving much of this nonsense. Our Mother the Earth is crying out for the awakening of the long suppressed Divine Feminine & Feminine Principle in the RCC, Christianity and across our home sweet Earth. Ms. Johnson appears to be one of many voices of the Divine Feminine crying out in the wilderness for such a conversion. Peace.
Oh, some days I wish there
Oh, some days I wish there were a Inquistion II, complete with racks and stakes for burning heretics, such as most of the staff of NCR (except John Allen).
Ah, yes, the good old days.
Ah, yes, the good old days. How much nicer the world would be today if we still burned heretics. Or witches! That would be fun, too! Oo, oo, wait ... what about SOCIALISTS! That would be the BESTEST best thing of all to burn!
I just hate when people think for themselves, don't you?
"Oh, some days I wish there
"Oh, some days I wish there were a Inquistion II, complete with racks and stakes for burning heretics, such as most of the staff of NCR (except John Allen)."
You are kidding, right?
Are we still in America? Are
Are we still in America? Are we still Christians? Some bishops offered an opinion on a rather obscure theology book and now they are compared to monsters and slashers. Have the Bishops lost their right to voice an opinion in this country? Agree or disagree with them, but the hateful and mean-spirited responses by this columnist and others is both unAmerican and unChristian. Look in the mirror, you are guilty of your own accusations.
I mean seriously, Peter was
I mean seriously, Peter was so smart he denies the Son of G*d three times! After being TOLD he would do so! Genius right there.
Post new comment